Overall I thought this movie was a very good interpretation of the book in many ways. The setting of the book was really depicted in the movie with what the houses and scenery how majestic everything was. The characters in the movie did a very good job on how everyone acted in the book and make me think of what they look like in the book. Things I didn't like in the movie from then book is sound track really threw things off. Using new music didn't really fit the time period they where going for it does attract more people that like modern music and can relate to the music, but doesn't follow the time period of the book. The settings where good but one thing that really was different was the parties, they made them more modern like today's parties than what parties where considered back then. Overall I think the producers and actors and actress did a very good job to really capture what the book means about people and there wealth.
I agree with Jake when it comes to the use of modern music. I didn't like how they tried to blend the two times together I feel that if they just stuck with the 1920s and didn't give it a modern edge it would have been a much more successful adaptation. It seemed especially unnatural at the party scenes where the characters would dance in an old-fashioned style but the music was very modern. I did, however, like the way the characters were represented. I imagined Mr. Wilson as a much older man but the way the direct made him young and unintellegent made more sense when it comes to how well Myrtle and Tom's affair was kept secret. I also thought it was very interesting how in the movie they made Nick a recovering alcoholic but also decided to keep the line about him only being drunk twice in his life. Obviously an alcoholic living in a facility has been drunk more than twice in his/her life so it makes me wonder why they kept that part in. In all I believe that the actors/ character choice and the set were done well and ultimately also the adaptation as a whole
I agree with Gretchen and Jake's opinions. I think the modern music took away from the 1920's time period. As the scenes played out, it was evident that the modernized music didn't fit with the story. The soundtrack was poorly chosen and didn't accurately portray the time period. In regards to Nick's narration I think it added an interesting perspective. However, I didn't agree with the choice to make him a recovering alcoholic. I imagined Nick to be a much more reserved and classy man. Overall, the movie was enjoyable and was a successful adaptation of the book.
Overall I found the movie to be an solid representation of the book, buy my biggest complaint would be in the choice of soundtrack. The Great Gatsby is supposed to be the epitome of the 1920, yet when I hear a Jay-Z song playing I cant help but think it's a modern story line. This component had me feeling in and out of the 20's. On a more positive note, I thought the casting was done exceptionally well. Each actor looked as if he/or she was meant to be that Gatsby character. Leonardo DiCaprio is smooth like Gatsby, Toby McGuire is more reserved like Nick, and even Jordan's actor had that bossy/sporty look you would imagine her having. I understand that when movie makers are recreating a classic they must alter some aspects for a more modern day appeal (soundtrack), so overall I thought the creators did a fair job in reserving some of the original elements while putting a more modern flare on the oldie.
I agree with what everyone has previously stated. I believe the movie did a wonderful job with the setting, you could clearly see the grandness of Gatsby's house especially in comparison to Nick's house. I also believe the outfits really depicted the time period. There were obvious flapper dresses which was a key fashion item of the 1920's so they did a good job including that. However, I do agree that the modern music really threw off the 1920's vibe. It did make the movie more enjoyable and rateable to those watching it nowadays but it failed to accurately portray the 1920's. Agreeing with Justin, the choice of actors was superb where each actor/actress clearly represents the description of their character in the book. Overall, I think the movie did a good job of recreating The Great Gatsby.
I disagree with Jake, Mackenzie, and Gretchen. I think the modern music didn't take away from the movie at all. There is an original movie in which this book has been made into. I believe the directors goal was to tie in the modern times with the 1920's. I believe that it did have some aspects relating to the 1920's but in regards to the party scenes, I believe the director wanted to connect the parties today with what they would've been back then. They do have the dance moves, the bootleggers, and the outfits that are from the 1920's. If they incorporated music from the 1920's I do not believe that this movie would appeal to the teens as much as it does. I also agree with Justin's remark on the characters. I think they chose really good actors to portray these characters. The actors did a really good job. I also liked Nick's narration in this movie. I thought it added more of an analysis of the scenes. It also gave more of Nick's opinion. The movie did follow the plot line for the most part. I prefer this interpretation of the movie better than the old one because it portrays the money and the alcohol a lot better. The director did a wonderful job.
Although a soundtrack is important (Personally I'd say the sole most important, but let's pretend I'm wrong), films contain plenty of other intriguing features, one of the most notable of which is the choice of actors. This was probably the only element of the film which was done correctly. Leonardo, besides being extremely attractive, played the "outwardly confident, but inwardly nervous" character with great success, and although his pronunciation of "sport" drove me crazy, I can forgive him. Whoever played Daisy was perhaps a little too on the arrogant side, but at the end of the day, she was the intended "golden girl", and yet still had enough emotional depth. Tom was perfect; arrogant, confident, twisted, and smart. I think he was portrayed the most accurately. Nick was underwhelming, but I suppose the is a certain beauty in that, and his character in the novel was quite the same. Just a fairly average guy attempting to find his way. That being said, I hate the idea of him as an alcoholic. I guess in the book he always seemed to smart for that too me. He's just too careful and reserved to fall pray to alcoholism, especially since, as others have mentioned, he said he was drunk only twice in his life. Lastly, Jordan was effective. Beautiful, yet frightening. She was there, but didn't draw the attention of the audience to drastically to her. The Wilson's were nothing special, but they were effective.
As for settings? Don't even get me started. This was one of the weaker points of the film for me. The CG was either bad or overdone, the parties looked way to wild and modern (not helped by the soundtrack either), and the city and dusty area were just plain silly looking, mostly because they were way overdone, but also because they as well gave too much of a modern vibe. The only area that almost made sense was Tom's house, and even that was dumb to the point of hilarity with all of the curtains and everything. Well, that and Nick's house.
Surprisingly, none of the scenes were changed enough to make me notice enough to care (Well, as far as content goes), other than Nick's alcoholism.
Nick's narration was well done. It was present enough to make an impact, and to get a sense of Nick as a character, but not too present as to be annoying and overbearing. His voice is nice too, so that was a plus.
Overall, I hate this movie. I disliked it when I saw it before having read the book, and now I just think they almost completely botched it. They killed the original spirit of the book for me, as I always felt that Nick was reflecting on his time with Gatsby as a sort of remembrance and something precious, rather than for his own psychological health. The soundtrack killed it (And not in a good way, because for some reason Jenna insists on using this phrase as a positive expression and I appear to have caught on), the CG made me laugh out of sympathetic embarrassment, the acting was barely over par, and the entire film just left a bad taste in my eyes. Because my eyes can taste things. There were very few things this movie did correctly, and they didn't even come close to balancing out all of the monumental failures, as they only barely held their own weight.
TLDR It was bad, the directors should feel bad. Leo is hot.
Oh so apparently my first long paragraph got cut out, here's a summary; The music choice makes no sense. The 1920's was a time period of amazing music and art, and to ditch that and go for a modern twist is ignorant and insulting to both the time period and the story. It was done in order to appeal to the younger audiences, as while they (I guess we) are terrible judges of quality, we bring in a lot of money. So, do I understand the decision? Absolutely. Does that make it less horrendous? No.
But yeah, it was a lot more in depth than that but it's like 12:45 and I'm tired, so there's no use rewriting it in all of it's former glory.
I agree with mostly everyone who said that the soundtrack the director chose to use made the movie more modern and slightly different. Obviously the book took place in the earlier 1900s so Jay-z would not be playing but I think the directors reasoning was to connect with a young generation and pull the watcher in and for the watcher to be able to understand the emotional roller coster these partiers were. Also a difference that I thought was very big was when you read the book you knew Daisy and Gatsby were having an intimate relationship but in the movie i wasn't sure, i assumed, but the movie never gave you proof. The director though i think created an amazing cast, who were very successful in interpreting the characters in the book. Overall I didn't see immense difference between the movie and the book and i believe the director did a very nice job creating this movie.
I wasn't a huge fan of this movie mainly because of how over the top everything was. When Gatsby introduces himself with the fireworks in the background and when he dies in slow motion are just two examples of how overly dramatic the scenes were. I agree that the soundtrack was not fitting for the time period that the movie was representing. One part that i did like was the narration of Nick. I thought it added insight and analysis that you wouldn't normally get if he wasn't narrating. However I agree with everyone else that it doesn't seem right that Nick is a recovering alcoholic when he had only been drunk twice. Overall, I didn't really like this movie mainly because of its overly dramatic scenes.
I agree with Elias almost completely (also, thanks for the shout out, bud.) Gatsby was portrayed as the beautifully mysterious man that you want to hate, but can't. I did not like how dramatic he was at times though, for example when he is introduced and fireworks go off in the background. Something was off about Daisy, I don't now quite what, but overall she did end up being the "perfect girl" of the story. Tom was the arrogant, macho man that he was supposed to be with the perfect amount of intimidation and secret insecurity. Nick was disappointing, he never seemed to be as excited, as nervous, or as sad as he was supposed to be. Jordan was the perfect mix of confident and beautiful and the supporting character she needed to be. Gatsby's personal assistant surprised me. I was not expecting him to be so dark and mysterious, but it added an interesting element to the story. The alcoholism was a big mistake to me. I don't think Nick's character was meant to be anything like that, and it confused me when he was portrayed as one. In contrast, I enjoyed the narration the alcoholism provided. This added an element of analysis that not only helped with misconceptions that could be made about that characters, but their personalities as well. The setting seemed comical at times. The Valley of Ashes was the biggest exemplar of this. Obviously faked, the importance of this place was toned down and made it not as meaningful. The gross grandeur and size of the homes of Gatsby and the Buchanan's were exactly how they should have been. However, the camera angles made them seem too fake at times. The music was entertaining and made it more appealing to a younger crowd, although it took away from the feel the book was trying to portray. Overall, the book was better than the movie. The movie did try hard to accurately portray the book, but the director fell short.
The movie adaptation of The Great Gatsby was defiantly not my favorite. I disliked the movie for multiple reasons, many of which have been previously mentioned on other posts. One of the big talking points so far has been the modern choice of music and weather or not it has taken away from the movie. I will admit it struck me as odd that there was Jay-Z playing at party taking place in the 1920's but that detail was not the most off-putting one. The movie was overwhelmingly dramatic which really took away from the story line of the movie. One aspect of the movie which highlighted the high degree of drama was the fact that all of the scenery was almost exclusively CGI. No matter how well this animation was done it could still be easily recognized as fake and that made the movie less attractive.
As petty much everyone has said, the modern music used as the soundtrack of the movie really took away from the overall story. It does not fit the time period at all. This is not the only thing wrong with the movie though. The ridiculous, over the top CGI scenes were completely unneeded to further the story. All of the scenes in the cars looked very fake, and added nothing to the story. However, I do believe that casting Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby was a great choice. He maintained the mystery and eccentricity of the character. Gatsby was still the same character in the movie as he was in the book. Beyond that though, I had no interest in the movie itself.
I thought the movie was terrible and agree with Elias on the fact that "...the directors should feel bad." It did not have too many good elements to it, besides the fact that it followed the story line pretty well. The actors/actresses did a bang-up job considering what they had to work with. Something that can be agreed upon by all is that Leo is hot, and he continues to make us blush. The music was okay, I do not really have to much to say about that. The setting and background the entire movie looked very fake and brought the overall quality of the movie down. The book was phenomenal, but the video we watched was a sad excuse for a movie. There is one specific part when Gatsby takes Nick on the road in his yellow car, you can tell the voice over from the audio was done terribly because it does not match up at all with the mouths of the actors. Baz Luhrmann should be ashamed of himself, and that is the nicest way for me to put it.
To start off I thought that the book was great and the movie was great, if you had not read the book. Otherwise you can't really look at the two as a comparison. The movie was cool to watch, but in contrast with the book it was way too modernized to take seriously. Especially in terms of the music choice. When they started playing modern music during the party scenes I'm sure I wasn't the only one to cringe because of how unreal to the scene of the movie it was. I know they're trying to appeal to a younger audience. However I don't think that a younger audience is so easily fooled when it comes to differentiating one generations' type of music to another. This movie is meant to take place in the 20's, that was not 20's party music. Also the party scenes were far too glorified in this version of the movie. While Gatsby was supposed to have extravagant and boisterous parties, it just crossed the line between lively and again, too modern. It was definitely a pretty entertaining movie to watch without having the book so seriously in mind. However one big compliment that I can give to the movie was the choice of actors. They all did an excellent job in portraying their characters and I was pleasantly surprised when Tobey Maguire was cast as Nick, which I quickly realized was an appropriate role even though it was different from how I pictured Nick. All in all the movie didn't seem perfect but it wasn't half bad either, and one shouldn't go in with expectations of the movie especially after reading the book.
Although this movie was a little over the top, especially the dancing in cars, I would agree with most that the movie was a well put together interpretation of the book. I believe that they did a wonderful job with the settings; showing either sides of New York from the Valley of Ashes to the roaring parties at Gatsby’s castle. The 1920’s was represented well in terms of Art Deco and what they wore, but not music. To be honest, having Tobey Maguire narrate the movie was almost like listening to the original Spider-man read you the book. Moving onto deleted scenes, I think an important scene the director left out was Gatsby’s father coming to his funeral. When I first watched the movie before reading the book I believed that it really was only Nick who cared for Gatsby. Besides all of that, I found the movie to be interesting and different.
After watching and reading the book, I thought that the movie was a "pretty good" adaptation to the book itself. As many of you say that the sound track was to modern for the time period, I thought it was very fitting to add thrill and excitement to keep people watching. I thought the sound track was entertaining and kept people watching because of the well known artists such as Jay-Z. If music from that time period was used, the movie could not be so interesting and upbeat. On the other hand, like Emilie said, some important scenes were left out in the movie that would have been nice to see in the movie. Overall, I thought the movie was a good adaptation from the Fitzgerald's book.
The Great Gatsby movie is definitely an accurate representation of the book. I believe that it successfully represents the themes that I found eminent throughout the text. The characteristics of the film that seemed to bother everyone else, I thought were extremely important in portraying the significance of the story. Like Jenna and Elias said, parts of the setting seemed to be "fake," however, this mood is crucial to the story. The story is meant to have an eerie feel, it is the narration of a man looking back on his life, memories tend to have dream-like features. Exaggeration of the houses perfectly represents the emotions that Nick is feeling while looking back-- though every detail isn't completely realistic, they serve a purpose that I think is not being acknowledged. I agree, my initial reaction was how strange certain parts were. Like on the bridge when they drove past the car full of people dancing. At this point, I was considering the comical aspect that Jenna talks about. But after I further pondered it, I realized that parts like this add to each scene by serving the purpose to illustrate the mood of the memory. And from that point on, I appreciated these aspects of the movie and really thought about how each element is significant in regard to the true themes of the story. Now, everyone is attacking the sound track, and I don't blame you guys. I also hated it when Jay-Z first started singing in the background. Especially after the close reading today, it is clear to me that time is a huge aspect of the story. Gatsby is stuck in the past, desperately trying to grasp onto what he once had. By adding modern soundtrack and other contemporary elements to the movie, I think this theme is exemplified. I really wanted to like the movie so maybe I'm trying too hard to justify a weaker aspect. But I really do believe that the meshing of two time-periods really ties it together. By adding the newer music and trends, apparent in the party scenes, the movie is connecting the concept of the book to modern day. The disgustingly fake reality of society that sickens Nick is still an unfortunate truth in today's world. The music that hypes modern youth up to expect this sort of unattainable greatness is added to the movie to make this connection. Characteristics of the movie are dream-like and may seem fake, because they are meant to provoke an eerie emotion that this society is relatable yet somehow unreachable. The very concept of the big, golden city is not real-- and this falseness is revealed in the story and still apparent in the visual aspects of the movie. The society is portrayed to not be real, because it's not. It's a pretty picture of what Nick wanted to believe, a beautiful golden vision that Gatsby tried to make a reality. His death shattered that vision and revealed to Nick the harsh truth behind it, the unfair actuality of the world.
Much like Gatsby's parties, I found minor details of the movie to be a bit excess and deceiving in comparison to the book. As many others already touched upon, the choice of modern music in a 1920s storyline can be distracting, but did not take away from the overall themes that both the movie and book portrayed. The movie still accurately illustrated Gatsby's flaw of living in is past memories of Daisy, struggling to reach an unattainable goal. Nick, much like in the book, was a fond of Gatsby. Although the book was more vague at instances like Daisy's sudden sadness while Gatsby throws his expensive shirts around. The movie gave Nicks character the role of analysis, and clarified why Daisy became overwhelmed where as the book only gives you dialogue. However I did not like how the movie made Nick out to be an alcoholic, especially when we don't see him drink much more than any of the other characters in the film. Besides that, the overall cast was a great fit and suited their individual qualities nicely. The only piece that could have added to the movie would have been some type of closure. The book is sure to dedicate a chapter that emphasizes Gatsby's death as an eye opener to Nick. The movie interpretation cuts this short and we don't understand that ironicly, Gatsby's death forced Nick to face the cruel reality of the city they live in.
So I don't really understand why everyone is hating on this movie so much, saying that they hated it, that they did a terrible job, and that the soundtrack is garbage. Personally I loved the soundtrack to the movie. Yes there were some things that were done differently from the book to the movie, but lets not forget, whenever a book is made into a movie, the book is always going to be better. That being said, this adaption of the book did fairly well in sticking to the story line of the book, keeping themes in tact, and transforming the movie for a more modern audience. Starting off with the soundtrack. No Jay z was not around during the 1920's. No Lana Del Ray was not around during the 1920's. These are two obvious points that people could not get over since the movie was made in 2013. I think it was actually a smart move by the producers by going with this music because it draws in a youthful audience, that may not have wanted to go see the Great Gatsby before hearing that Jay z's song was in it. Secondly, during certain scenes they would alter some of the music so that it would fit with the times. I thought that use of newer music with older style beats added to the movie, and helped to blend the two eras together, giving the audience a better feel for how people during the 1920's felt. The music also made it easier to watch. Who wants to watch a movie with all 1920's swing music? I don't think anyone under 20 wants to. Another point that people are frequently bringing up is when they pass a car with people dancing in it. It was a convertible and looked extremely strange because well, people don't normally dance going down the highway in convertibles. Giulianna brought up the idea that this story is nick recalling these accounts, therefore the story will not be reliable. This scene is a perfect example of the unreliable narrator. In reality were the people really standing, dancing in the car? No. I'm pretty sure most other people in the class overlooked the fact that everyone dancing in the car was black, and that the driver of the car was white. Hmmmm. That seems a little strange it being the 1920's. This is a clear representation of the Harlem Renaissance, where the Blacks are being allowed some more cultural freedom, so this role reversal which was displayed in the scene was actually an important insight to the setting of the Great Gatsby. Also, the fact that Nick is from Yale (outside of New York) it probably seemed very odd for a white man to be driving a group of black people. Probably as strange as a group of people dancing in an open convertible. That is the real reason I believe this scene was portrayed as it was, and did not create flaws in the movie as many other people have seen. Overall, I enjoyed the movie. No it was not perfect. No the CGI did not look "realistic" but the CGI in this movie was different from any other movie that I have seen. It is unique, you have to credit it that. I thought the flybys through the city was a pretty cool way to portray New York. So, like I said earlier, I liked the movie, it did its job, the actors were pretty damn good, and though some scenes may look comical after reading the book, its easy to pick apart a movie after reading its counterpart. Comparatively to most other book to movie conversions, this one was brilliant.
Overall I thought this movie was a very good interpretation of the book in many ways. The setting of the book was really depicted in the movie with what the houses and scenery how majestic everything was. The characters in the movie did a very good job on how everyone acted in the book and make me think of what they look like in the book. Things I didn't like in the movie from then book is sound track really threw things off. Using new music didn't really fit the time period they where going for it does attract more people that like modern music and can relate to the music, but doesn't follow the time period of the book. The settings where good but one thing that really was different was the parties, they made them more modern like today's parties than what parties where considered back then. Overall I think the producers and actors and actress did a very good job to really capture what the book means about people and there wealth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake when it comes to the use of modern music. I didn't like how they tried to blend the two times together I feel that if they just stuck with the 1920s and didn't give it a modern edge it would have been a much more successful adaptation. It seemed especially unnatural at the party scenes where the characters would dance in an old-fashioned style but the music was very modern. I did, however, like the way the characters were represented. I imagined Mr. Wilson as a much older man but the way the direct made him young and unintellegent made more sense when it comes to how well Myrtle and Tom's affair was kept secret. I also thought it was very interesting how in the movie they made Nick a recovering alcoholic but also decided to keep the line about him only being drunk twice in his life. Obviously an alcoholic living in a facility has been drunk more than twice in his/her life so it makes me wonder why they kept that part in. In all I believe that the actors/ character choice and the set were done well and ultimately also the adaptation as a whole
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gretchen and Jake's opinions. I think the modern music took away from the 1920's time period. As the scenes played out, it was evident that the modernized music didn't fit with the story. The soundtrack was poorly chosen and didn't accurately portray the time period. In regards to Nick's narration I think it added an interesting perspective. However, I didn't agree with the choice to make him a recovering alcoholic. I imagined Nick to be a much more reserved and classy man. Overall, the movie was enjoyable and was a successful adaptation of the book.
ReplyDeleteOverall I found the movie to be an solid representation of the book, buy my biggest complaint would be in the choice of soundtrack. The Great Gatsby is supposed to be the epitome of the 1920, yet when I hear a Jay-Z song playing I cant help but think it's a modern story line. This component had me feeling in and out of the 20's. On a more positive note, I thought the casting was done exceptionally well. Each actor looked as if he/or she was meant to be that Gatsby character. Leonardo DiCaprio is smooth like Gatsby, Toby McGuire is more reserved like Nick, and even Jordan's actor had that bossy/sporty look you would imagine her having. I understand that when movie makers are recreating a classic they must alter some aspects for a more modern day appeal (soundtrack), so overall I thought the creators did a fair job in reserving some of the original elements while putting a more modern flare on the oldie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone has previously stated. I believe the movie did a wonderful job with the setting, you could clearly see the grandness of Gatsby's house especially in comparison to Nick's house. I also believe the outfits really depicted the time period. There were obvious flapper dresses which was a key fashion item of the 1920's so they did a good job including that. However, I do agree that the modern music really threw off the 1920's vibe. It did make the movie more enjoyable and rateable to those watching it nowadays but it failed to accurately portray the 1920's. Agreeing with Justin, the choice of actors was superb where each actor/actress clearly represents the description of their character in the book. Overall, I think the movie did a good job of recreating The Great Gatsby.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Jake, Mackenzie, and Gretchen. I think the modern music didn't take away from the movie at all. There is an original movie in which this book has been made into. I believe the directors goal was to tie in the modern times with the 1920's. I believe that it did have some aspects relating to the 1920's but in regards to the party scenes, I believe the director wanted to connect the parties today with what they would've been back then. They do have the dance moves, the bootleggers, and the outfits that are from the 1920's. If they incorporated music from the 1920's I do not believe that this movie would appeal to the teens as much as it does. I also agree with Justin's remark on the characters. I think they chose really good actors to portray these characters. The actors did a really good job. I also liked Nick's narration in this movie. I thought it added more of an analysis of the scenes. It also gave more of Nick's opinion. The movie did follow the plot line for the most part. I prefer this interpretation of the movie better than the old one because it portrays the money and the alcohol a lot better. The director did a wonderful job.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAlthough a soundtrack is important (Personally I'd say the sole most important, but let's pretend I'm wrong), films contain plenty of other intriguing features, one of the most notable of which is the choice of actors. This was probably the only element of the film which was done correctly. Leonardo, besides being extremely attractive, played the "outwardly confident, but inwardly nervous" character with great success, and although his pronunciation of "sport" drove me crazy, I can forgive him. Whoever played Daisy was perhaps a little too on the arrogant side, but at the end of the day, she was the intended "golden girl", and yet still had enough emotional depth. Tom was perfect; arrogant, confident, twisted, and smart. I think he was portrayed the most accurately. Nick was underwhelming, but I suppose the is a certain beauty in that, and his character in the novel was quite the same. Just a fairly average guy attempting to find his way. That being said, I hate the idea of him as an alcoholic. I guess in the book he always seemed to smart for that too me. He's just too careful and reserved to fall pray to alcoholism, especially since, as others have mentioned, he said he was drunk only twice in his life. Lastly, Jordan was effective. Beautiful, yet frightening. She was there, but didn't draw the attention of the audience to drastically to her. The Wilson's were nothing special, but they were effective.
As for settings? Don't even get me started. This was one of the weaker points of the film for me. The CG was either bad or overdone, the parties looked way to wild and modern (not helped by the soundtrack either), and the city and dusty area were just plain silly looking, mostly because they were way overdone, but also because they as well gave too much of a modern vibe. The only area that almost made sense was Tom's house, and even that was dumb to the point of hilarity with all of the curtains and everything. Well, that and Nick's house.
Surprisingly, none of the scenes were changed enough to make me notice enough to care (Well, as far as content goes), other than Nick's alcoholism.
Nick's narration was well done. It was present enough to make an impact, and to get a sense of Nick as a character, but not too present as to be annoying and overbearing. His voice is nice too, so that was a plus.
Overall, I hate this movie. I disliked it when I saw it before having read the book, and now I just think they almost completely botched it. They killed the original spirit of the book for me, as I always felt that Nick was reflecting on his time with Gatsby as a sort of remembrance and something precious, rather than for his own psychological health. The soundtrack killed it (And not in a good way, because for some reason Jenna insists on using this phrase as a positive expression and I appear to have caught on), the CG made me laugh out of sympathetic embarrassment, the acting was barely over par, and the entire film just left a bad taste in my eyes. Because my eyes can taste things. There were very few things this movie did correctly, and they didn't even come close to balancing out all of the monumental failures, as they only barely held their own weight.
TLDR
It was bad, the directors should feel bad. Leo is hot.
Oh so apparently my first long paragraph got cut out, here's a summary;
DeleteThe music choice makes no sense. The 1920's was a time period of amazing music and art, and to ditch that and go for a modern twist is ignorant and insulting to both the time period and the story. It was done in order to appeal to the younger audiences, as while they (I guess we) are terrible judges of quality, we bring in a lot of money. So, do I understand the decision? Absolutely. Does that make it less horrendous? No.
But yeah, it was a lot more in depth than that but it's like 12:45 and I'm tired, so there's no use rewriting it in all of it's former glory.
I agree with mostly everyone who said that the soundtrack the director chose to use made the movie more modern and slightly different. Obviously the book took place in the earlier 1900s so Jay-z would not be playing but I think the directors reasoning was to connect with a young generation and pull the watcher in and for the watcher to be able to understand the emotional roller coster these partiers were. Also a difference that I thought was very big was when you read the book you knew Daisy and Gatsby were having an intimate relationship but in the movie i wasn't sure, i assumed, but the movie never gave you proof. The director though i think created an amazing cast, who were very successful in interpreting the characters in the book. Overall I didn't see immense difference between the movie and the book and i believe the director did a very nice job creating this movie.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't a huge fan of this movie mainly because of how over the top everything was. When Gatsby introduces himself with the fireworks in the background and when he dies in slow motion are just two examples of how overly dramatic the scenes were. I agree that the soundtrack was not fitting for the time period that the movie was representing. One part that i did like was the narration of Nick. I thought it added insight and analysis that you wouldn't normally get if he wasn't narrating. However I agree with everyone else that it doesn't seem right that Nick is a recovering alcoholic when he had only been drunk twice. Overall, I didn't really like this movie mainly because of its overly dramatic scenes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elias almost completely (also, thanks for the shout out, bud.) Gatsby was portrayed as the beautifully mysterious man that you want to hate, but can't. I did not like how dramatic he was at times though, for example when he is introduced and fireworks go off in the background. Something was off about Daisy, I don't now quite what, but overall she did end up being the "perfect girl" of the story. Tom was the arrogant, macho man that he was supposed to be with the perfect amount of intimidation and secret insecurity. Nick was disappointing, he never seemed to be as excited, as nervous, or as sad as he was supposed to be. Jordan was the perfect mix of confident and beautiful and the supporting character she needed to be. Gatsby's personal assistant surprised me. I was not expecting him to be so dark and mysterious, but it added an interesting element to the story.
ReplyDeleteThe alcoholism was a big mistake to me. I don't think Nick's character was meant to be anything like that, and it confused me when he was portrayed as one. In contrast, I enjoyed the narration the alcoholism provided. This added an element of analysis that not only helped with misconceptions that could be made about that characters, but their personalities as well.
The setting seemed comical at times. The Valley of Ashes was the biggest exemplar of this. Obviously faked, the importance of this place was toned down and made it not as meaningful. The gross grandeur and size of the homes of Gatsby and the Buchanan's were exactly how they should have been. However, the camera angles made them seem too fake at times.
The music was entertaining and made it more appealing to a younger crowd, although it took away from the feel the book was trying to portray.
Overall, the book was better than the movie. The movie did try hard to accurately portray the book, but the director fell short.
The movie adaptation of The Great Gatsby was defiantly not my favorite. I disliked the movie for multiple reasons, many of which have been previously mentioned on other posts. One of the big talking points so far has been the modern choice of music and weather or not it has taken away from the movie. I will admit it struck me as odd that there was Jay-Z playing at party taking place in the 1920's but that detail was not the most off-putting one. The movie was overwhelmingly dramatic which really took away from the story line of the movie. One aspect of the movie which highlighted the high degree of drama was the fact that all of the scenery was almost exclusively CGI. No matter how well this animation was done it could still be easily recognized as fake and that made the movie less attractive.
ReplyDeleteAs petty much everyone has said, the modern music used as the soundtrack of the movie really took away from the overall story. It does not fit the time period at all. This is not the only thing wrong with the movie though. The ridiculous, over the top CGI scenes were completely unneeded to further the story. All of the scenes in the cars looked very fake, and added nothing to the story. However, I do believe that casting Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby was a great choice. He maintained the mystery and eccentricity of the character. Gatsby was still the same character in the movie as he was in the book. Beyond that though, I had no interest in the movie itself.
ReplyDeleteI thought the movie was terrible and agree with Elias on the fact that "...the directors should feel bad." It did not have too many good elements to it, besides the fact that it followed the story line pretty well. The actors/actresses did a bang-up job considering what they had to work with. Something that can be agreed upon by all is that Leo is hot, and he continues to make us blush. The music was okay, I do not really have to much to say about that. The setting and background the entire movie looked very fake and brought the overall quality of the movie down. The book was phenomenal, but the video we watched was a sad excuse for a movie. There is one specific part when Gatsby takes Nick on the road in his yellow car, you can tell the voice over from the audio was done terribly because it does not match up at all with the mouths of the actors. Baz Luhrmann should be ashamed of himself, and that is the nicest way for me to put it.
ReplyDeleteTo start off I thought that the book was great and the movie was great, if you had not read the book. Otherwise you can't really look at the two as a comparison. The movie was cool to watch, but in contrast with the book it was way too modernized to take seriously. Especially in terms of the music choice. When they started playing modern music during the party scenes I'm sure I wasn't the only one to cringe because of how unreal to the scene of the movie it was. I know they're trying to appeal to a younger audience. However I don't think that a younger audience is so easily fooled when it comes to differentiating one generations' type of music to another. This movie is meant to take place in the 20's, that was not 20's party music. Also the party scenes were far too glorified in this version of the movie. While Gatsby was supposed to have extravagant and boisterous parties, it just crossed the line between lively and again, too modern. It was definitely a pretty entertaining movie to watch without having the book so seriously in mind. However one big compliment that I can give to the movie was the choice of actors. They all did an excellent job in portraying their characters and I was pleasantly surprised when Tobey Maguire was cast as Nick, which I quickly realized was an appropriate role even though it was different from how I pictured Nick. All in all the movie didn't seem perfect but it wasn't half bad either, and one shouldn't go in with expectations of the movie especially after reading the book.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this movie was a little over the top, especially the dancing in cars, I would agree with most that the movie was a well put together interpretation of the book. I believe that they did a wonderful job with the settings; showing either sides of New York from the Valley of Ashes to the roaring parties at Gatsby’s castle. The 1920’s was represented well in terms of Art Deco and what they wore, but not music. To be honest, having Tobey Maguire narrate the movie was almost like listening to the original Spider-man read you the book. Moving onto deleted scenes, I think an important scene the director left out was Gatsby’s father coming to his funeral. When I first watched the movie before reading the book I believed that it really was only Nick who cared for Gatsby. Besides all of that, I found the movie to be interesting and different.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching and reading the book, I thought that the movie was a "pretty good" adaptation to the book itself. As many of you say that the sound track was to modern for the time period, I thought it was very fitting to add thrill and excitement to keep people watching. I thought the sound track was entertaining and kept people watching because of the well known artists such as Jay-Z. If music from that time period was used, the movie could not be so interesting and upbeat. On the other hand, like Emilie said, some important scenes were left out in the movie that would have been nice to see in the movie. Overall, I thought the movie was a good adaptation from the Fitzgerald's book.
ReplyDeleteThe Great Gatsby movie is definitely an accurate representation of the book. I believe that it successfully represents the themes that I found eminent throughout the text. The characteristics of the film that seemed to bother everyone else, I thought were extremely important in portraying the significance of the story. Like Jenna and Elias said, parts of the setting seemed to be "fake," however, this mood is crucial to the story. The story is meant to have an eerie feel, it is the narration of a man looking back on his life, memories tend to have dream-like features. Exaggeration of the houses perfectly represents the emotions that Nick is feeling while looking back-- though every detail isn't completely realistic, they serve a purpose that I think is not being acknowledged. I agree, my initial reaction was how strange certain parts were. Like on the bridge when they drove past the car full of people dancing. At this point, I was considering the comical aspect that Jenna talks about. But after I further pondered it, I realized that parts like this add to each scene by serving the purpose to illustrate the mood of the memory. And from that point on, I appreciated these aspects of the movie and really thought about how each element is significant in regard to the true themes of the story.
ReplyDeleteNow, everyone is attacking the sound track, and I don't blame you guys. I also hated it when Jay-Z first started singing in the background. Especially after the close reading today, it is clear to me that time is a huge aspect of the story. Gatsby is stuck in the past, desperately trying to grasp onto what he once had. By adding modern soundtrack and other contemporary elements to the movie, I think this theme is exemplified. I really wanted to like the movie so maybe I'm trying too hard to justify a weaker aspect. But I really do believe that the meshing of two time-periods really ties it together. By adding the newer music and trends, apparent in the party scenes, the movie is connecting the concept of the book to modern day. The disgustingly fake reality of society that sickens Nick is still an unfortunate truth in today's world. The music that hypes modern youth up to expect this sort of unattainable greatness is added to the movie to make this connection. Characteristics of the movie are dream-like and may seem fake, because they are meant to provoke an eerie emotion that this society is relatable yet somehow unreachable. The very concept of the big, golden city is not real-- and this falseness is revealed in the story and still apparent in the visual aspects of the movie. The society is portrayed to not be real, because it's not. It's a pretty picture of what Nick wanted to believe, a beautiful golden vision that Gatsby tried to make a reality. His death shattered that vision and revealed to Nick the harsh truth behind it, the unfair actuality of the world.
Much like Gatsby's parties, I found minor details of the movie to be a bit excess and deceiving in comparison to the book. As many others already touched upon, the choice of modern music in a 1920s storyline can be distracting, but did not take away from the overall themes that both the movie and book portrayed. The movie still accurately illustrated Gatsby's flaw of living in is past memories of Daisy, struggling to reach an unattainable goal. Nick, much like in the book, was a fond of Gatsby. Although the book was more vague at instances like Daisy's sudden sadness while Gatsby throws his expensive shirts around. The movie gave Nicks character the role of analysis, and clarified why Daisy became overwhelmed where as the book only gives you dialogue. However I did not like how the movie made Nick out to be an alcoholic, especially when we don't see him drink much more than any of the other characters in the film. Besides that, the overall cast was a great fit and suited their individual qualities nicely. The only piece that could have added to the movie would have been some type of closure. The book is sure to dedicate a chapter that emphasizes Gatsby's death as an eye opener to Nick. The movie interpretation cuts this short and we don't understand that ironicly, Gatsby's death forced Nick to face the cruel reality of the city they live in.
ReplyDeleteSo I don't really understand why everyone is hating on this movie so much, saying that they hated it, that they did a terrible job, and that the soundtrack is garbage. Personally I loved the soundtrack to the movie. Yes there were some things that were done differently from the book to the movie, but lets not forget, whenever a book is made into a movie, the book is always going to be better. That being said, this adaption of the book did fairly well in sticking to the story line of the book, keeping themes in tact, and transforming the movie for a more modern audience.
ReplyDeleteStarting off with the soundtrack. No Jay z was not around during the 1920's. No Lana Del Ray was not around during the 1920's. These are two obvious points that people could not get over since the movie was made in 2013. I think it was actually a smart move by the producers by going with this music because it draws in a youthful audience, that may not have wanted to go see the Great Gatsby before hearing that Jay z's song was in it. Secondly, during certain scenes they would alter some of the music so that it would fit with the times. I thought that use of newer music with older style beats added to the movie, and helped to blend the two eras together, giving the audience a better feel for how people during the 1920's felt. The music also made it easier to watch. Who wants to watch a movie with all 1920's swing music? I don't think anyone under 20 wants to.
Another point that people are frequently bringing up is when they pass a car with people dancing in it. It was a convertible and looked extremely strange because well, people don't normally dance going down the highway in convertibles. Giulianna brought up the idea that this story is nick recalling these accounts, therefore the story will not be reliable. This scene is a perfect example of the unreliable narrator. In reality were the people really standing, dancing in the car? No. I'm pretty sure most other people in the class overlooked the fact that everyone dancing in the car was black, and that the driver of the car was white. Hmmmm. That seems a little strange it being the 1920's. This is a clear representation of the Harlem Renaissance, where the Blacks are being allowed some more cultural freedom, so this role reversal which was displayed in the scene was actually an important insight to the setting of the Great Gatsby. Also, the fact that Nick is from Yale (outside of New York) it probably seemed very odd for a white man to be driving a group of black people. Probably as strange as a group of people dancing in an open convertible. That is the real reason I believe this scene was portrayed as it was, and did not create flaws in the movie as many other people have seen.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. No it was not perfect. No the CGI did not look "realistic" but the CGI in this movie was different from any other movie that I have seen. It is unique, you have to credit it that. I thought the flybys through the city was a pretty cool way to portray New York. So, like I said earlier, I liked the movie, it did its job, the actors were pretty damn good, and though some scenes may look comical after reading the book, its easy to pick apart a movie after reading its counterpart. Comparatively to most other book to movie conversions, this one was brilliant.