Eckleburg are blue and gigantic-their irises are one yard high. I would have enjoyed more adaptation at times that would have made a better visual impact.īut above the gray land and the spasms of bleak dust which drift endlessly over it, you perceive, after a moment, the eyes of Doctor T. That just read awkward, and Redford did what he could with it. And even sometimes it didn’t read well…Gatsby reaching out to the green light, for example. What reads well doesn’t always translate well visually. In staying so true to the book, the words and actions sometimes felt forced and wooden. There is more shown between Daisy and Nick than with Jordan. You see them together, but it is never developed. I felt that played a key part in understanding Nick’s relation with the shallowness and amorality lifestyle. The relationship between Nick and Jordan is almost completely lost. On to the things I didn’t like about the movie. Gatsby’s business dealings (particularly with Meyer Wolfsheim) are hinted at very well, even though the bond swindles are shortchanged. Eckleburg (with ‘oculist’ misspelled for some reason) billboard while he talks about God. * There is a nice additional scene in the movie, with Tom Wilson looking out at the T.J. * The relationship between Nick and Jay was played very well-stiff and formal at first, much chummier and almost a true friendship by the end. This is followed by a great scene of Jay and Daisy dancing around a single candle. * Redford’s face as he shows off his opulent house to Daisy captured Jay’s feelings perfectly, feeding the dream of making her love him again. The liquor bottles being carried in the produce crates was a nice reminder of Prohibition. * The preparation for the party at Gatsby’s place was overwhelming, as the sheer volume of things consumed was monstrous. When everything stands as a symbol, the effectiveness of such symbolism loses me.Ī few scenes that I thought were enjoyable: I had no problem with much of the symbolism being toned down because I found it overwhelming in the book. Gatsby’s dream was presented more as an individual pursuit than generalized into “the great American dream,” for example. In a book that has so much symbolism in so many different ways, from colors to weather to nature and more, much was not included or had other things substituted. Left to right: Tom, Jordan, Daisy, Nick and Jay Lois Chiles was note perfect as the cipher that was Jordan. Karen Black made Myrtle even more of a repulsive character (although she didn't fit the physcial description either) and Scott Wilson made George an even more sympathetic character. Sam Waterston moves well from innocent viewer to active participant. The lack of physical size undermines some of his actions, but Dern does a good job making up for it. Bruce Dern was perfect as Tom, even though he didn’t have the “hulking” size that the book describes. Redford made a decent Gatsby, doing well with an enigmatic role. Sets, costumes, and music were all perfect. The raw hedonism of the moneyed ‘20s as portrayed in the book came to life for me. The film is a visual joy-sets and camera work are perfect, with many stunning shots. The East/West theme in the book was completely missing, however. Gatsby’s dream of capturing the past is pretty much as in the book-maybe not as deep but definitely developed in the movie. The screenplay was fairly faithful, with some themes emphasized and others completely dropped. The book is laden with symbolism and themes, while capturing an era that is past. The transition from novel to screen was going to be difficult. I enjoyed watching it, but found a few bad directorial choices compounded the weaknesses (as I see them) of the book.
Symbols in the great gatsby movie movie#
The movie had high expectations when released in 1974, but was both a box office and critical disappointment. In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars. There was music from my neighbor’s house through the summer nights.
0 kommentar(er)
