Of all the countless books I was forced to read in high school, there were only two that I genuinely enjoyed reading: Markus Zusak's "The Book Thief," and F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby."
Maybe I really liked three-word titles that start with "The..." -- who's to say? All I know is how much they moved me as a reader. I'm hoping Brittany shares my sentiment for them in the Book Corner, but I'm here to talk about how "The Great Gatsby" was adapted to the big screen.
No, not the Leonardo DiCaprio one. Or the silent one from the 1920s. Or the… oh my gosh, HOW MANY ARE THERE!?
Turns out there are four, and it seems that none of them are really that great. This week we're going to look at Paramount Pictures' 1974 version since it will celebrate its 50-year anniversary this year.
Francis Ford Coppola, a high-ranking member of the filmmaking GOAT conversation, joined the production to write the screenplay just two years after the release of "The Godfather." He would go on to direct "The Godfather Part II" and "The Conversation" later that year. Busy guy . . .
After nailing down a brilliant mind for writing, the film needed a star to play the title character, Jay Gatsby. After failing to get both Warren Beatty and Jack Nicholson for the part, they even tried to get Marlon Brando to go from mob boss to hopeless romantic, but that also backfired. Robert Redford was eventually chosen to be the lead man.
The biggest praise for this adaptation is how well it stayed true to the original. Most of the dialogue is ripped straight from the page, but Cappola did take liberties when it was necessary.
The characters are brought to life really well, and their carefree, rich-beyond-belief attitudes are conveyed brilliantly.
As a movie adaptation, it is flawless. Don't make unnecessary stuff up. Don't cut out parts that you think are 'boring.' Don't change characters because it'll make them more marketable. When the source material does 60% of your work for you, LET IT.
Why couldn't the director of the "Percy Jackson" movies take note of this? The one movie that gets a pass for this is "American Psycho," because that would have been a TOUGH watch… even more than it already is.
I'm sure the question you're all asking is "is it better than the Leonardo DiCaprio version?" Yes and no. The DiCaprio version is much easier to watch. It's shorter, faster, stylized and has an incredible cast, but it loses the book's vision a little.
This may be due to format changes over the years, but the '74 version captures the melancholic sadness that looms over the characters just like the novel. One of the driving factors of the book is how sick the characters are of their lives, and the DiCaprio version seems to glorify the parties and wealthiness just a little too much. The old version definitely wins when it comes to conveying the same themes and motifs of F. Scott Fitzgerald's vision.
If you like the book even a little bit and have not seen the 1974 movie, I highly encourage you to watch along and see how many lines were taken straight from the source.
Comments