The Great Gatsby

This 1949 version was beautifully restored fairly recently but has been hard to find. Here in the US the dvd set is entitled The Great Gatsby Double Pack and costs less than $20. It was thrilling to see the restored version at last! Though this version has its flaws, Alan Ladd creates exactly the Gatsby described by F Scott Fitzgerald. He has that dazzling smile and that intriguing rather opaque personality. This outer persona contrasts with the vulnerable inner Gatsby, again beautifully interpreted by Ladd who seems so natural in the part. None of the other versions have a Gatsby who is so believable. (Toby Stephens perhaps comes closer than the other recent Gatsbys in the year-2000 version also included in this set.)

Unfortunately no version, including this 1949 version, has a completely satisfying Daisy. The only actress I can think of who would have been a perfect fit would be Norma Shearer (assuming a version had been made about 1932-34!) She had a gift for playing glamorous jazz-age debutantes, and she also had the skills to bring out the other sides of Daisy's character.

At the end of the 1949 version a narrator "cleans up" some of the plot elements and re-interprets some of the characters' deeds. It is very odd, obviously connected to the Production Code, and probably a rewrite -- as it does not fit with the original script. (Ditto a brief prologue at the beginning of the film.) Also it is likely Shelley Winters's part was written larger but was left on the cutting room floor. She actually played the part brilliantly, but it was so truncated that only someone familiar with the book and with Shelley Winters's other work would see what the part was meant to be.

So yes, this movie is imperfect but so worth seeing, especially now that it has been restored!

This is the second film version of the novel. I have not viewed the 1926 version, but since it is a silent film, and the novel is so chatty, I can hardly think it captures Fitzgerald's vision. The 1974 (3rd) version suffers from two or three problems that overwhelm the lovely props and costumes - an abysmal score, the debatable effect of Redford's grin, and casting mousy Mia Farrow as money-voiced Daisy - a role she cannot fill. Sam Waterson and Bruce Dern are well cast but then mostly have to stand around rather than play off their contrasting physical types. Karen Black perfectly embodies the excess vitality that motivates Tom's adultery. The 2000 A&E/Granada (4th) version comes closer with a more believable Daisy (Mira Sorvino) and an equally everyman Nick (Paul Rudd), but not a better Jay, and then focuses too much on the furniture of Gatsby's criminal activities. It boasts a real Owl Eyes, too. The 1949 version is not perfect either; we can only hope the 2012-oops!-2013 version finally nails it. The '49 version casts Nick as a bit of a dull boy, and fails most by insisting on "squaring" everything, losing in the process the essential melancholy, unfulfilled longing, and insulted morality of the novel. Perhaps it's an artifact of the period, America embracing a sanitized Freudian relativism, putting the Second WW behind it like the First, but this time too sober to try anything like the Roaring 20s. Betty Field is a convincing Daisy, though she falls pretty far from a Louisville débutante. Jordan is not nearly arch enough, Tom not nearly imposing enough. And Dr. TJ Eckleburg...well Gatsby's henchman can't resist explicating a symbol the audience should be allowed to figure out for itself. After an unsteady start, the pace of the film proceeds very well through most of the scenes of the novel, sadly failing to give Shelley Winters the screen time to better develop her Myrtle Wilson. And here's Howard da Silva suitably muted as Wilson, Ed Begley too muted as "Lupus"(Wolfsheim), and Elisha Cook, Jr in an expanded Klipspringer role. In fact, it's almost as if the film makers wanted to write Nick out and replace him with Klipsringer, but didn't dare. They should have, because Cook brings more to the screen than Macdonald Carey. All in all, a very workmanlike adaptation, making use of much of the novel's narration by transforming it into passable dialog, and though the shot composition is a bit straight-on, the camera-work is strong and the editing spot on.

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.

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.

~~~6.5/10~~~

It has been a while since I read the novel, so I was able to detach myself from the source material enough to watch the film from that vantage point. And I have to say, I believe this greatly aided in my enjoyment of the picture. I'm not saying it is a perfect film by far, but as a stand alone film, it is better than the average B melodrama of the period.

However, once I finished the film I began to make comparisons to the novel, which is definitely in my personal all-time top 10 books, and that's where the film went from an 8 to a 7 or 6. Like many of the previous posters mentioned, the film does drastically diminish Gatsby's mystery by laying out his background early on in the story. And this does detract from what most people love about the book. Also, the script does not take enough advantage of it's source material and the wonderful prose of Fitzgerald.

I personally did not find the film extremely miscast and the leads were not a problem for me. Granted they are not what I envisioned Gatsby and Daisy being like when I read Fitzgerald's work, but in my opinion they are able to make the roles work. I thought the secondary leads and the character parts were for the most part well cast and that the actors each made the roles their own.

The problem with the film is that it IS based on the novel. And contrary as to how I was able to watch the film, one should be able to critique this film based on the vantage of comparing it to the novel. If this weren't the case, then the film should never have been titled "The Great Gatsby". So, if one is able to watch the film without constant comparisons to the novel, I think they will better enjoy the viewing experience, but that doesn't excuse the film's shortcomings when it comes to living up to its source material.