As we stated in class, the 1974 version of The Great Gatsby was true to the 20s. Director, Jack Clayton, wanted it to be authentic with costumes, cars, hair, etc. I found the 1974 version to be rather boring, personally, I just couldn't keep focused on what was going on. Now, maybe it was due to the million things I had to get done that week, but I really think it was the acting and overall feel of the film. It never drew me in. There was nothing that made we want to pay attention (okay, so maybe I have ADD). I also didn't think the characters were portrayed very well, both in appearance and characterization (attitudes, emotions, etc.). It seemed to me that the actors needed to do more of a character analysis on their characters. Lines were just said however the actor chose to say them (now, I'll be the first to tell you that every actor interprets things differently, but you all have to work together to make sure you interpret your lines in a way that will help the meaning of the piece show through). The last thing Nick says to Gatsby, "They're a rotten crowd. You're worth the whole damn bunch put together," didn't even make since to me in this version. 
The 2013 version, however, I thought was true to the overall feel of the novel. Maybe it was a little over-the-top for the 20s, but I was drawn in. I wanted to watch, see what would happen, and I didn't think it was boring at all. I'm not saying that the 20s where a boring time in history, please don't think I'm saying that. I'm sure it was as mesmerizing and interesting to the people of the 20s as the 2013 version of The Great Gatsby was to me. That is why I think the question raised in class is a valid question. With all the Hollywood influence in our lives today, it was important to make this version something that would grab an audiences attention. The musical score, I thought, complimented the mood nicely (I didn't even realize in the bridge scene the music was coming from the car, but after we watched it the second time I thought it was strange), and characters were portrayed pretty well. Lines didn't just seemed thrown in willy-nilly, and I do think the emotion and meaning of the novel came through in Luhrmanns version a whole lot better than in the 1974 version. Maybe Hollywood has made me ADD when it comes to movies, but I would watch Luhrmanns version over Clayton's version any day.
One last thing I want to talk about before ending, Tom. This character to me is a big, tough, mean guy. When someone is described as "hulking" they seem bigger than the other characters. I think the 1974, Tom, was a poor portrayal. He seemed scrawny to me, and it really annoyed me. The 2013 version, Tom, I think was better. Even though he wasn't huge, the costumer did a great job of making him seem more "hulking" and less scrawny.
What do you think? Did Luhrmann have to "amp things up" to help us feel what the people of the 20s felt, and what Tom did you like better?
I agree that the newer version kept my attention longer. I felt as though I connected with the music, and the new Gatsby movie had music and dress that depict what I envision for the 20's. I think that Luhrmann did a fabulous job appealing to a 21st century viewer.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I felt I connected better with it, as well.
DeleteI love your comment about how maybe Hollywood has made you ADD when it comes to movies. I think that's a great point when thinking about these two very different portrayals of the same novel. As we talked about in class, both movies are very true to their times, but I think they have to be. Hollywood conditions us to be expectant of a certain amount of action and "pizzazz" for lack of a better term. In 2013, we are used to seeing movies that are loud, dramatic, and full of meaningful dialogue. Hollywood knows this, as evidenced in the movie we watched earlier in the semester, "Adaptation." Even the few in Hollywood who know about the cliches and want to fight them can't seem to get away from it, which is why Luhrmann's Gatsby is so appropriate and well done for 2013. Though I wasn't around in 1974, I would imagine that the 1974 "Great Gatsby" would have done justice to the Hollywood of its time, and given moviegoers exactly what they were expecting.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I'm sure the 1974 version was good for the time...I'm just to ADD now to appreciate it, I guess!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think I was the one who brought that up, Jessie. I'm glad you appreciated my question/comment! That being said, I obviously agree with you. I think if the music had been selections resembling music from the 20s, the audience (including myself) would have felt more like they were watching a documentary or history film, not a gripping adaptation of a classic novel. That being said, I wonder if the selection detracts from the "timelessness" of the film; i.e. maybe people who watch it in another twenty years will feel that this version was simply made for people contemporary to that version, without future generations in mind. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteWell, cool! I couldn't remember who it was, but I'm glad you did because I probably wouldn't have thought about it otherwise. I do think it is a great possibility that future generations will think this Gatsby was film of it's time as well. I think it is almost inevitable (I'm not saying that there are no timeless films, because there are, but for this film it may be the case). It's weird to think about, but I know people who love the 1974 version over the 2013 version. It might be because the '74 version was a product of their time, or we just have different tastes in movies. Either way, to answer your question, I think people 20 years from now could definitely see the 2013 version as contemporary for our time.
DeleteI love the interaction that resulted from your post! Great post and discussion here. It is very important for us to consider how movies are a product of their time. However, don't be so quick to dismiss the older films -- they bring important discourse to the fore. I also think that we need to use our imaginations to create new ways of understanding the adaptations we see. How might movies made in our time need to 'translate' earlier works to meet our sensibilities? Good responses here, from all of you.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I will defend the 1974 version with everybody. I guess you had to grow up in the 60s and 70s to not only appreciate the way movies were made without the special effects we have now in movies but I will defend Robert Redford and cast. His acting in this movie is the same in his other movies. He is handed a script and portrays that character with his acting skills that has had people talking about how great of an actor he was and still is. I did also like the 2013 movie because of the special effects. I do agree with you as far as the actors that portrayed Tom. The 2013 Tom did fit the description better than the 1974. Bruce Dern is a great actor but not for this movie as Tom.
ReplyDelete