The Great Gatsby
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.97 You Save: $10.98 (55%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.99 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Great Gatsby
Movie Review: Winning features are the Fitzgerald bio and his narrative text in movie
Summary: 4 Stars
Pros and cons of the 2000 (UK, 2001 US) A&E version of The Great Gatsby have been extensively discussed. Suffice it to say, I value it because, unlike the 1974 movie, the 2000 one has Nick extensively voicing Fitzgerald's (1896-1940) beautiful prose.
However, the real winner on the 2000 Gatsby DVD is the extra, namely, the A&E biography: F. Scott Fitzgerald: The Great American Dreamer (1997). Narrated by Edward Herrmann, it is in 4:3 aspect and has a TT0:44:35. This A&E bio was previously available separately for $25 list but is now out of print.
Movie Review: Not a bad movie!
Summary: 4 Stars
I've bought the 1974 version and was impressed by it. The 1974 version provided us with a perspective which is similar with the book. However, this 2000 version offered a different perspective to see the past of Gatsby and Daisy. It has more details about Gatsby and Daisy's love in the past which is origin from the movie director I think. In addition, this movie has more description of Carriway's relationship with Jordan. It's a fresh way to comprehend the book. Worthy of trying.Movie Review: In the Footsteps of the Great Gatsby
Summary: 3 Stars
I am a great fan of Toby Stephens, who consistently turns in splendid performances (even making the dour Mr. Rochester terribly appealing), but I believe that the actor has been miscast in the role of Jay Gatsby. I don't think that Stephens fits into the shoes of Gatsby as F. Scott Fitzgerald has conceived him--larger than life; a man of mystery, who, in the party scene, remains anonymous in the crowd of what Shakespeare would have called "gilded butterflies" and what Fitzgerald himself seems to portray as moths blustering too close to a guttering candle flame. The dreamlike quality of the novel (which, as I recall was evident in the David Merrick/Jack Clayton/Francis Ford Coppola version), is almost totally missing from this latest production.
Where Fitzgerald suggests, the director of this film states outright. in the novel, for example, Nick's memories of his first encounter with Daisy and Jordan--on a seemingly floating divan--are suffused with light drifting through insubstantial billows of white curtains. In the movie, however, Nick simply walks into the living room of an elegant house in which a couple of beautiful girls are lolling on a white couch. In the novel, Nick's first memory of Gatsby is of a lonely stranger, standing at the edge of the water, gazing across the sound at the distant winking green light on Daisy's pier. In the movie, however, the concept has been reversed, in a closeup of a wistful Daisy standing next to the green light on her own pier looking across the sound in the direction of Gatsby's mansion. The reversal of perspective completely misses Fitzgerald's point that Daisy is Gatsby's dream, not the other way around.
These are not the only differences. In the novel, for instance, through Nick's eyes, we witness a deterioration of the mansion, as Gatsby's created world of false elegance gradually disintegrates. As autumn approaches, the proper servants have been replaced by sinister subordinates with underworld connections. In the movie, however, there is no hint of the ugliness beneath the luxurious façade that Fitzgerald seems to suggest with the change of servants.
The disconnect between the novel and the movie is particularly noticeable in the party sequence: in Fitzgerald's narrative, Gatsby's extravagant fete has an impressionistic quality as partygoers and snatches of conversation flit in and out of Nick's consciousness; in the movie, however, the raucous party-girls and their outrageous antics are thrust not only in Nick's face but also in that of the viewer. Moreover, because of the literal orientation of the director, Gatsby's extravagant festivities have a similar impact to Tom and Myrtle's tawdry party. Furthermore, Fitzgerald's subtle use of Gatsby's name and his delayed introduction of the title character, which whets the reader's interest, is mishandled in the movie with clumsy flashbacks of various characters repeating the name, "Gatsby" . . . "Gatsby" . . . "Gatsby!"
While one might praise the scriptwriter's use of Fitzgerald's prose in a voiceover, the writers have taken inexcusable liberties with it. For instance, they have put words into the mouth of "Owl eyes," an inebriated guest who marvels that Gatsby has real books in his library, to the effect of "Oh yes, I look just like Dr. T.J. Eckleberg on the sign in the Valley of Ashes; everybody says so!" Although Fitzgerald may have used "Owl Eyes" as part of his recurrent imagery of viewing (including the disembodied billboard eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleberg), he never expresses the idea explicitly. Fitzgerald leaves it to the reader to make the analogy between Eckleberg's eyes staring down at the Valley of Ashes and "Owl Eyes" scrutinizing Gatsby's coffin--"Owl Eyes" being the only other mourner besides Nick and Gatsby's long-forgotten father at the funeral.
But back to Toby Stephens. He has charm to die for but somehow--and I believe that the fault can be laid at the door of the director--in this role he lacks that air of elusiveness that causes everyone in the novel to speculate about Gatsby's origins; Stephens is certainly likable as Gatsby, but he somehow seems too literal in his portrayal of Gatsby, a man who has invented himself so expertly that he keeps everyone guessing as to whether he has been a German spy; an Oxford scholar; a war hero, or a con man. In Stephens' otherwise excellent portrayal, unfortunately, no guesswork is necessary.
Movie Review: A rushed adaptation of a classic American novel
Summary: 3 Stars
+++++
This movie is based on the novel "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896 to 1940).
The novel that takes place during the "Jazz Age" (period of the early 1920s) is basically about a poor man named Jay Gatsby who seemingly through The American Dream becomes rich. But the rich Gatsby still wants to obtain another dream: to be reunited with the love of his life (Daisy) who is now married. It is this second dream that proves to be Gatsby's ultimate downfall. The novel has many subtle themes that run through it (that's why it's considered a classic).
This movie that features Mira Sorvino as Daisy and Toby Stephens as Gatsby is basically faithful to the above summary (and actually takes lines from the novel itself) but unfortunately because it is rushed (I mean rushed in the sense of telling a complete story; the movie itself is actually slow-moving) the viewer never has time to appreciate the story's finer subtleties.
The movie starts out fine but as it proceeds, it does not spend enough time on key story elements. For example, Gatsby is not presented as a somewhat mysterious person but we simply see him as poor one moment and then suddenly rich. Daisy's character is not well developed at all. In fact, one key and important scene that reveals Daisy's true character is omitted altogether. Thus, those who have not read the novel may be somewhat confused especially during the movie's second half and if they are not confused, then they will probably not understand why the novel on which this movie is based is considered a classic.
The costumes, scenery, and cinematography in this movie are fantastic.
Finally, the DVD (the one released in 2001) is perfect in picture and sound quality. It has one superb extra: an A&E biography of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
In conclusion, this movie, unfortunately, is a rushed adaptation of a classic American novel.
(2000; 100 min; wide screen; made for T.V. (A&E); 12 scenes)
+++++
Movie Review: Gatsby as Godfather
Summary: 3 Stars
This wild shot at Fitzgerald's masterpiece sees it all as a sort of proto-Godfather saga, 60 years ahead of its time. Beautifully costumed and with a sharp and accurate period look, this British TV version is a very distanced interpretation (if you can call it an interpretation, rather than an abject misunderstanding) of Gatsby. The take is pure gangland style -- an element certainly in the book, but which hardly subsumes it all -- or ought to, anyway. The story is really about romantic extravagance and earnestness; that takes more than mere costuming and sets, but actors with a lot of heart. The men here have no appeal whatsoever; they're all thugs. Mira Sorvino's Daisy, however weird, is presented as some sort of heroine -- about as far from Fitzgerald's intent as you can get. The dialogue is all accurate, mind you, and the story line is not significantly altered. Simply, this total misunderstanding of Gatsby is an object lesson on how mere "textual faithfulness" is far from enough to properly mount a literary work as film.
You can't blame our cousins across the Atlantic River though. The tight, terse Fitzgerald text is obviously based on the reader sharing certain cultural assumptions; this version exposes that fact about the book, and to that extent is useful. And the Brits never understood Scott Fitzgerald from the get-go, though he has always bugged them. The late great British literary critic Cyril Connelly summed it up perhaps best, "Scott Fitzgerald is an American imposition, and I am beginning to resent him." This was in the 60s, in the heights of the Fitzgerald revival which continues to this day.
The film still rates 3 stars because -- paired off against the more famous Redford Gatsby (which is also quite textually accurate) -- it presents fascinating issues of textual interpretation and personal and cultural orientation. Know the book well though, and see the other film first before coming to this.