Grandezas que matan

There have been 4 major film adaptations of GATSBY to date. The 1926 silent version made right after the novel was published is currently a lost film. Too bad as, if nothing else, it would have been authentic. That was also the case with this one until a clean print was discovered in 2012. The 1974 version with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow and the 2013 Baz Luhrman/Leonardo diCaprio magnum opus were both mega budget affairs with the former focusing on fashions while the latter overindulged on lavish CGI settings. Both also had inflated running times (1974-143 min, 2013-163 min) that led to pacing problems which made me wish they had ended a lot sooner.

Due to its lesser running time of 91 minutes, this version focuses more on the characters and their interaction with each other which captures the essence of the book better than 1974 or 2013. Wholesale story changes were made due to the Hollywood censors of the day. The Jazz Age was considered to be the epitome of sinful behavior therefore fashions had to be 1940s, Nick and Jordan had to get married, Tom's affair with Myrtle is barely hinted at, and a prologue with religious overtones had to be added,. In spite of all that, the movie works thanks to several committed performances and a tightening of the plot which makes the story easier to follow.

Alan Ladd is an ideal Jay Gatsby as he captures not only his self confident belief that money can buy anything but also his underlying romantic vulnerability that leads to his downfall. Betty Field gives a low key performance as Daisy which makes her sudden breakdown at the end all that more effective. MacDonald Carey is a solid Nick Carraway while Ruth Hussey is just right as Jordan Baker. A young and svelte Shelley Winters is underused as Myrtle but she makes the most of her limited screen time. Top acting honors go to Howard da Silva as George who is both pitiable and surprisingly powerful as he transitions from a sick husband to a vengeful one while Henry Hull's devilish Dan Cody (Gatsby's mentor) is great fun to watch.

As I mentioned at the outset, this first remake was considered lost for years as Paramount removed it and the 1926 film from their vaults to make way for the 1974 release The 1926 version remains lost but this one survived in low quality pirated VHS copies that were later converted to low budget DVDs which even then were hard to come by. The picture quality was soft and the sound a little muffled but that's all there was...until now. Universal, who owns the rights to all pre-1960 Paramount movies, got together with Via Vision Entertainment to produce this officially sanctioned edition that has superior sound and picture quality. Too bad it doesn't come with subtitles. While many others prefer the bigger, longer adaptations, I'll take this one as my preferred version...For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.

It is very difficult to tell which is better between the 1974 and 1949 versions, both have their good merits but both suffer from major problems. The 1974 film has the better production values and better supporting cast, and it is more faithful in detail to the book. The 1949 film though is closer in spirit, has the better Gatsby and there is more depth. The book is a sentimental favourite and is a great book, though maybe not one of the all-time great literary classics. This film is not great really, but it is not bad either. There are things that do work in its favour, Alan Ladd may not be the best of actors but still brings an enigmatic and mysterious presence while not being too restrained, there is even room for him to play to his strengths. The script can over-explain itself sometimes but there is more of a feeling of Fitzgerald's prose especially in the first third, and the story has a much brisker pace(the 1974 film was dull and overlong) and is generally much closer in spirit and depth, if not the details, to the later version, which came across as too dry and too faithful. The music in both films captures the spirit of the music of the 20s beautifully. Shelley Winters nails it as Myrtle, Ruth Hussey is entrancing while never too bland, Howard Da Silva is a touching George(though the character is more tormented in the later version) and MacDonald Carey's Nick is dignified as the character who kind of is the glue of the narrative.

There are some misfires in the casting though, the biggest problem being Betty Field's vacuous and almost too sympathetic Daisy, thankfully she doesn't play her too stridently like Mia Farrow did but it was a bland performance that dilutes the character. Barry Robinson is more ideal physically than Bruce Dern but the oily and brutish attitudes and mannerisms are not there(which Dern nailed), he comes across as too suave. The film doesn't look too bad, it is nicely shot and the costumes and sets are very 20s but there is also too much of a film-noir element, if you aren't familiar with the story and book beforehand you'd be convinced that it was like a mystery thriller instead. Visually there is a sense of period but the attitudes not so much, stripping away at the danger, excitement and fun of the Jazz Age(that would be true actually on reflection of both versions). Most of the story is fine, but the ending is a cop-out and it would have been wiser to keep Gatsby a mysterious figure rather than saying off the bat who and what he is and where he came from, which misses the point really of what makes the story itself so alluring, that the character is essentially an enigma. The final third disappoints, reading too much of run-of-the-mill 40s melodrama. Overall, not really a good film but it is also not a bad one, in a way it's a mixed bag. Now onto seeing the TV and Baz Luhrmann versions, Lurhmann's looks as though it could go either way but the TV version looks really promising. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This is a pretty good movie that seems to be lost. It contains possible Alan Ladd's fine performance, and is far better than the vapid 1974 remake with Redford.

The public's response to the recent remake of The Great Gatsby was unexpectedly strong—and for several weeks it led at the box office. Now this does not mean that it was a huge financial success—but it was a success. Although it made well over $140,000,000 in the US, it cost $100,000,000 to make—but it was well-attended and the critical reviews were mostly positive. However, I did some research and found that there are at least three prior theatrical versions—and they all met different levels of success. There was a 1922 version that is considered lost— and no one has seen this film in decades. There also is the famous 1974 Robert Redford and Mia Farrow film that earned four times its cost to make (wow!). However, there is one other version—one that was thought to be lost up until 2012 and I have had this near the top of my must-see list for years. In 1949, Alan Ladd made the first talking version of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel—and I had the fortune to see this film over the weekend at the TCM Film Festival. And, I assume that it will soon be available on DVD or will be shown on TCM (so far, it has not). So keep an eye out for it.

This 1949 film does have one strike against it from the outset. The Production Code was still strictly being enforced by the Hays Office. Because of that, some elements of the novel needed to be altered slightly to get it past censors. However, I was thrilled that for the most part the story does follow the book rather closely. It's not perfect in this regard, but is much closer than I'd ever expected.

The story is about a man who suddenly bursts onto the social scene on Long Island during the 1920s. Who he is exactly is unknown to most of his new 'friends', but they know that he sure throws great parties at his enormous mansion. But the viewer is left wondering why…why would Gatsby go to so much trouble and expense to buy this old mansion and redecorate it from top to bottom and then use it to throw lavish parties? Who was he trying to impress and how, exactly, did he come by so much money? Through the course of the film you learn the answers to all these things. And, what I appreciated it that although the man is very flawed and in some ways a villain, he is also a tragic character— one you cannot help but like and feel sorry for by the end of the picture.

The direction was quite competent as was the acting. However, the star was clearly the Fitzgerald novel—and it's hard imagining ANY version of the story being anything other than excellent. It really is a nice story and offers a lot of great twists. Plus, most importantly, it is so unique. I was also surprised at what a nice job Ladd did in the film —especially since he generally showed limited range in his films. He tended to be very stoic and non-emotional and generally played the same sort of tough guys in nearly all his films. Here, however, he shows more range and vulnerability than a typical Ladd film. So why did Alan Ladd make such a film? Was he forced to do it by the studio? Well, the truth is quite different. According to Ladd's son, David (who talked about the film before this special screening on Sunday night), it was a project Ladd forced his studio, Paramount, to make. They LOVED having him play gangsters, cowboys and the like but Ladd himself was impressed by the story and insisted he get a chance to do it. Sadly, the film did NOT do very well at the box office and was soon lost—and Ladd returned to making the sorts of films he'd been making--- enjoyable, yes, but also limited in style. It makes you wonder what might have happened to his career had the film been a success.

Overall, this film was a real treat. It's an intelligent film for folks who are looking for something with great depth of feeling and human frailty.

This version of Scott Fitzgerald's short novel is remarkably faithful to the original and infinitely more successful as a film than the big budget version which appeared two decades later, starring Robert Redford. Alan Ladd puts in an excellent performance in the title role simply by playing the usual Ladd persona. The character of Gatsby in the novel is not fully fleshed out, nor did the author intend him to be more than an illusive figure fired by an obsession. Ladd, who was not an actor of any great talent, seems to be particularly suited to the part. Redford, a much greater actor, added a dimension, the aura of the 'glamorous' leading male star, which the reader does not associate with the Gatsby of the novel and as a consequence, is not convincing. The 1949 version, in monochrome, captures much of the atmosphere of the 'jazz age' which strangely does not come over in the lavish period detail of the later version. The gallery of supporting players contributes significantly to the success of the film. There are a few minor faults, such as the montage shots in the opening sequences which border on cliché. Nick Carraway is less prominent than the author might have intended. But the essence of the novel is there.