The Great Gatsby

This is the most faithful film version of Scott F. Fitzgerald's famous novel. However, I feel other versions, although not necessarily as true to the book, have captured the elusive character of Jay Gatsby more successfully.

Told through the Eyes of Nick Carraway (Paul Rudd) the film follows the book fairly closely with less rearranging of the material than the Ladd, Redford or DiCaprio versions.

Obsession is a tricky quality to treat sympathetically on the screen. But that is exactly what Jay Gatsby displays in his pursuit of Daisy: the love he lost and thinks he has found again.

Toby Stephens as Gatsby just seems too squared away to be harbouring a 5-year obsession, which he will go to any lengths to satisfy including openly stealing another man's wife. He carries off the self-made man to a point, but he doesn't project that almost indefinable, enigmatic quality that is the key to Gatsby's character. He and Paul Rudd also project a similar style - the different look of Leo DiCaprio as Gatsby and Toby Maguire as Nick was a better counterpoint in Baz Lurhmann's 2013 film.

The other three sound versions had a major star in the role. Where you would think a lesser-known actor could inhabit the role more comfortably without reference to his star quality, the opposite seems to be true. Both Alan Ladd and Leo DiCaprio delivered a complex, enigmatic Gatsby.

Only Robert Redford's star power may have worked against him. His persona also seemed too solid and sensible to let his emotions totally take over his life. However, charisma was no problem for Redford.

Although Gatsby is an enigma - Daisy is also a mystery. Whereas Fitzgerald had words to describe her, an actress playing Daisy must project what it is that Gatsby sees in her. Daisy is attractive, but fundamentally weak and simply wants to run when confronted with the traumas in her life. Nick Carraway sees right through her.

I think Cary Mulligan in Baz Lurhmann's film caught those qualities, as did Betty Field opposite Alan Ladd, Mia Farrow gave her a neurotic edge, while Mira Sorvino plays it low-key here, masking Daisy's indecision - it's a thoughtful performance.

The production of this movie is adequate for the story, and it is probably the best version to see first, because all the others bring something else to the table beyond a straight interpretation of the book.

I've been reading the other comments here, and all I can ask is what planet are you from? You're saying that "the story wasn't that good." Don't you realize that this is an adaptation of one of America's best novels? This is a tragic story of a man who builds his life to deserve a dream he'll never have? Admittedly, I've read the book and can't just separate my knowledge of the Great Gatsby, but it should be obvious that there is tremendous emotional depth. "Not a good story." I thought it was a good representation--I loved finally seeing my valley of ashes and Dr. Eckelberger's imposing eyes. Casting was excellent, except Tom wasn't enough of a bigoted ignoramus. But I thought they were pretty faithful. Tom's house, Gatsby's party, and Nick's house were all that I imagined. It was great in that respect.

I have taught Great Gatsby for many years, and always been disappointed in the film (and lately opera) dramatizations. The plot of the novel is rather sordid and simplistic when deprived of Fitzgerald's presence as narrator (through the character Nick). The vital essence of the novel is the author's mastery of phraseology and vocabulary, which, since they are not directly part of the plot, but comment on the plot, are not easily translated into dramatic form, despite efforts in past versions to utilize some of the author's dialogue. This new adaptation is exceptionally faithful to the text. The finest feature is that the adapter has chosen to use Nick as an over-voice, (as in the novel), so that much of Fitzgerald's gorgeous language has been preserved. The flashbacks are handled so as to blend naturally into the action, and not much is added to the original except some transitional dialogue. The performances are above average, especially the three women leads, but all are good (though Gatsby need not have smiled quite so much).

Ok, some of these people giving comments about this movie obviously never paid attention to the 1974 version. For one thing, this adaptation is actually interesting. The 1974 version was totally boring, mostly because the actors/actresses showed no enthusiasm at all. And I believe this version is just as close if not closer to the book as the 1974 version. This new adaptation is much more enjoyable than the old.

Regarding the review from Erin (leiabelle@msn.com) - just a quick point of clarification. The reviewer noted that "Gatsby seemed too old" - an interesting observation given that of all the actors who have so far portrayed Gatsby on film, Toby Stephens was significantly the youngest at the time of filming. He was born in 1969 and the film was released in 2000 thereby making Stephens no more than 31 by the time of the film's release. In the silent film of "The Great Gatsby" released in 1926, Gatsby was played by Warner Baxter, born in 1889, making him no more than 37. Alan Ladd was born in 1913 and played Gatsby in the 1949 release making him no more than 36 at the time. Robert Redford was born in 1936 making him no more than 38 by the time of the 1974 release. Leonardo DiCaprio was born that same year (ie 1974) making him no more than 39 by the time of the spectacular Baz Luhrmann 2013 release. It's hard to believe but just going by the mathematics, Leonardo may very well have been the oldest film actor yet to have played Jay Gatsby at the time of filming. Toby Stephens however holds the record to this date (ie 7 February 2014) as being by far the youngest actor. This still doesn't refute the original reviewer's contention however that "Gatsby SEEMED too old." He clearly did to the reviewer. It's just that anyone wishing to go by the cold hard facts need only "do the maths."