DLers, is the 1974 film version of The Great Gatsby that bad?

Who would you have cast in their places?

I thought it was pretty good and what a cast! I didn't think Mia Farrow was awful, but Daisy is a really tough character to pull off. She's wonderfully complex.

Redford was miscast, in retrospect. Gatsby was supposed to be nouveau riche, starry-eyed, grifty, sociopathic, but a little bit lovable. There was supposed to be a vulnerable and striving side to Gatsby. Redford doesn’t ever have that as an actor.

I liked it a whole lot better than the 2013 version.

Bruce Dern was also miscast. There is something really coarse about Dern. The character was supposed to be a corrupt cad, but I think would have had a more polished surface.

Ali MacGraw was originally to be Daisy... until she divorced the producer for Steve McQueen.

I guess we should thank her?

It is so dreamy looking. It makes me feel like I just woke up from a summer nap.

I love Waterston and Scott Wilson.

It isn't horrible, I think it has a bad reputation with many, because it is one of those films we had to watch in high school English class.

Karen Black, floozin’ it up.

I thought it was pretty good. No mention of the magnificent horror of Karen Black?

Mia looked the part, but I didn’t think Daisy the character was as trembly and nervy as Mia was. Redford’s Gatsby seemed too kind and genteel, and not criminal enough.

Berlin’s “What’ll I Do?” is positively haunting and I find myself singing it every so often, and thinking of the movie.

But I love it, anyway. Newer versions just don’t add up, although I think DeCaprio had a better look for Gatsby.

Lois Chile’s and Sam Waterston ended up in Vogue together.

I liked it.

Redford can’t act, but we knew that going in.

The Vogue layout was by Chris Von Wangenheim

Am I alone in thinking that Sam Waterston was very appealing?

My AP English teacher showed us clips from this movie to make us laugh after we were done analyzing the book.

I've never thought of Waterston as hot but he looked quite handsome in this.

Also, loved the dancing scenes. Especially when the two women take to the dancefloor.

Mia squeaked & squawked her way through her part, Redford was all wrong and the movie was WAY too slow.

Sam Waterson was excellent IMO.

And Lois Chiles & Scott Wilson were good.

R10 , good observations. I’ve always read Daisy as trembly and nervy but I don’t know how much of that is because the first copy of the book I ever owned was the movie tie-in paperback, when I was a teen. I kept going to the glossy photographs in the middle of the book and imagining Mia’s voice saying Daisy’s lines.

At the time it was a disappointment, I think, but it’s held up, despite its flaws, and the cinematography is beautiful.

Dern and Redford should've swapped roles but the box office wouldn't have allowed it. At the same time, the movie was a notorious flop.

Patsy Kensit, who’s the romantic lead in the divine ANGELS & INSECTS (1995), played Mia’s daughter.

This is a good movie to watch in lockdown!

I would've been great in this.

Had to watch it in high school and the boys thought Mia Farrow was ugly as hell.

[quote]R14 Am I alone in thinking that Sam Waterston was very appealing?

You are not alone.

Sam doesn't quite convince in that Vogue shoot. The Gatsby era haircut suits him better.

It's not horrible.

The thing is, is that the book is unfilmable. The beauty of the book is all on the page. The words are EVERYTHING.

And you can't film that.

R21 "Now remember darling, Gatsby touched your no no in the attic. "

Let’s recast it with actors from the same time period as Redford and Farrow.

So... not McGraw.

I remember Karen Black, Bruce Dern and Sam Waterston got good reviews, Redford got mixed notices, while Mia was savaged. Some critics said Black would've made a better Daisy. The costumes and sets were also praised, but the movie overall was seen as a snoozefest.

Redford can't act, but nobody cared.

As much as I like Karen Black, also miscast as the mistress. IMO, the mistress wouldn't have been so quirky looking.

i've always wanted to see the 1949 version with Alan Ladd, just out of curiosity for comparison. It received mixed reviews at the time. There was also a well received silent film version but it's a lost film. Only the trailer survives.

Candice Bergen (who would have been awful), Katharine Ross and OUR FAYE all tested first the role of Daisy. I wonder where that footage is.

Liza Minnelli was also considered.... which would have sent the damn thing [italic]off the rails.[/italic]

The usual picky subjects (Julie Christie and Tuesday Weld) didn’t want to be involved. Cybill Shepherd refused to test, miffed that they couldn’t see she was “perfect for the part.”

Daisy’s actually kind of a shrew. I don’t know why she gets romanticized.

R31, I agree. I chalk all that up to it being the 70s.

R33, that was interesting!

Faye would have made a compelling Daisy.

[quote] Bruce Dern was also miscast. There is something really coarse about Dern. The character was supposed to be a corrupt cad, but I think would have had a more polished surface.

Wow, r5, that was exactly my reaction to Bruce Dern, too. And, perhaps my judgment is id biased because I adore Mia Farrow, but I thought she was a good Daisy.

What Missdoug at r26 said.

Still, I'm one of the few who LOVED the 2013 Baz Lurhmann version. I know that may seem that I'm contradicting myself by agreeing with r26, but I'm not.

It's weird, but I tuned into; I "got". what Lurhmann was going for and I went along with it.

And, I know he's hated by some but I was totally captured by Di Caprio's star power. I thought he was much more compelling than Redford.

Hayley Mills (b. 1946) as Daisy?

I agree that Redford and Dern should have switched roles. But I liked Farrow, because, to me, as Gatsby observes, “her voice sounds like money.” What we need to see in Daisy is a charming debutante, just not very sincere, and really unworthy of Gatsby’s blind idolatry. (I wonder if Fitzgerald based Daisy on Zelda, whom he as an outsider also initially worshiped. Wouldn’t be surprised.)

The structural problem with the book is that, when Gatsby finally has his long-hoped-for reunion with Daisy, instead of showing us what happened then, Fitzgerald instead gives us Gatsby’s backstory. So we never really know what they said or did, leaving film versions to draw their own, often faulty, conclusions. The novel is a dramatic doughnut, with an empty center.

There have been several film versions. I like the one from 1949, with Alan Ladd as Gatsby, Macdonald Carey as Nick, and Betty Field as Daisy. It hasn’t nearly the budget of later versions, but Ladd pulls it off, and the tea party scene at Nick’s cottage is very good.

I wonder if, like a number of other great novels, it’s just unfilmable.

(Although I do like the 1974 early appearance by Edward Herrmann as a freeloading piano player at Gatsby’s estate.)

Most of this was shot at the Rosecliff mansion in Newport. My senior prom was there. Gorgeous place.

Mia Farrow was pregnant when she made this, and throwing up between takes. The silhouette of the clothes helped hide it.

Stephen Collins as Gatsby?

I found it lovely, except for the horrid casting of that no talent mia farrow......how in fuk was she a star????

guess she used her coochie coochie..

I think it is widely considered a turkey, but it actually did well at the box office. According to Wikipedia, Tennessee Williams loved it, and even said it "surpassed the novel".

[quote]R38 I like the one from 1949, with Alan Ladd as Gatsby, Macdonald Carey as Nick, and Betty Field as Daisy.

I was the goddamn star of that picture. Just like I was in LOLITA!

As bad of an actress as she usually is, Cybill Shepherd might have been well cast as Daisy. She has a vapid quality that could have worked.

Agree with R26 that the book is unfilmable. Even Fitzgerald's other books such as Tender is the Night and This Side of Paradise would be difficult to capture the feel of the writing and the atmosphere of the era.

Other books that fall in this category: Wuthering Heights, Frankenstein, Jane Eyre, etc.

[quite] Katharine Ross and OUR FAYE all tested first the role of Daisy

She may be YOUR Faye, but that unprofessional bitch is NOT “our” Faye.

[quote]R42 I found it lovely, except for the horrid casting of that no talent mia farrow......how in fuk was she a star????

Because she was beautiful, talented, Hollywood Royalty, and very popular from PEYTON PLACE and ROSEMARY’S BABY.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with her Daisy. The role’s just a cipher.

It had Redford in it...he needs a strong leading lady to work off of, or his limitations show up. TGG was one of those times.

IMO, Mia Farrow was well-cast and perfect for the role. Someone with a sense of entitlement who would use up Gatsby then cast him aside easily. Also well-cast (Farrow) as someone who was in an ostensibly bad marriage to a corrupt person, but she herself was also corrupt, so there you go.

Black and Chiles were perfect.

Gatz is really the only version that works because they do not actually show you the novel.

The 1949 cast,

Mia Farrow stated that she sent the producers of the movie a note asking them if she could be their Daisy - and they agreed. I like Mia Farrow but after seeing the movie she was clearly the wrong choice, giving a poor interpretation of Daisy, and it helped to sink the movie.

Liked it.

I tried to watch the movie on TV one night but it was so boring that I turned it off. Robert Redford was pleasing to the eye but Mia Farrow was a pain to watch.

There was only one actress for the role of Daisy...

Why did they drive into New York and rent a hotel room for the day? Couldn't they have gone to Central Park or a restaurant? I never understood that part.

Our Meredith should have played the role.

[quote](I wonder if Fitzgerald based Daisy on Zelda

Definitely. Tender is the Night is also based on them. Basically, he wrote about himself and his life.

Ralph Lauren did the men's clothes and Broadway legend Theoni V. Aldredge did the women's clothes. GQ devoted an entire issue to them.

[quote]Patsy Kensit, who’s the romantic lead in the divine ANGELS & INSECTS (1995), played Mia’s daughter.

And then she played Mia:

J'll watch just about anything with Redford in it, He was so easy to look at ...... but not lately.

I think MB(B) and Cybill are both too hard for Daisy.

Daisy is a fucking CUNT.

I find mia hard to watch in anything. ide never pay money to see her films. she alwys trys to play the pitiful pearlina....she is always MIA: the victim... rosemary was a fab movie, but not because of her, twas the director who made a great film...

[quote]I think MB(B) and Cybill are both too hard for Daisy.

I was actually thinking of our Meredith for the role of Gatsby.

[quote]Why did they drive into New York and rent a hotel room for the day? Couldn't they have gone to Central Park or a restaurant? I never understood that part.

Tom, in wanting to take Gatsby down, chooses the Plaza Hotel as a way to assert his dominance over Gatsby. The Plaza is a luxurious hotel that is frequented by the wealthy. Since Tom and Daisy are "old money" and Gatsby is an outsider to that world, the Plaza gives Tom the "home field advantage", so to speak. It's the perfect setting for Tom to expose and demolish Gatsby in Daisy's eyes.

[quote]I find mia hard to watch in anything. ide never pay money to see her films. she alwys trys to play the pitiful pearlina

The only thing I ever liked her in was Radio Days where she played the squeaky showgirl.

[quote]Tom, in wanting to take Gatsby down, chooses the Plaza Hotel as a way to assert his dominance over Gatsby.

Did the Plaza rent rooms just for day use?

If you have the money, you probably can get anything you want. Including the use of hotel suite for the day.

What R26 said. For Fitzgerald, the medium WAS the message, and his poetry can’t be easily translated to film. In the turgid 1974 version, Nick’s melancholy, dreamlike observations are replaced with Hollywood gloss and distracting mega-stars. If there is another remake, god forbid, I hope Lars Von Trier directs it.

R59, I think they were seeking air conditioning in the heat, hence, the hotel. I could be misremembering.

[quote] Daisy is a fucking CUNT.

So actually, Mia was perfectly cast.

I liked Leo's Gatsby. I liked it a lot.

[quote]But I liked Farrow, because, to me, as Gatsby observes, “her voice sounds like money.”

That is exactly what I thought of when I saw it R38. I totally buy her in the role of being someone who projects the image she wants to be viewed as (which can change depending on the other person) but is not a caring person at all. Black was good (that part was right up her alley), also thought Dern was miscast. Chiles was perfect for Jordan.

The costumes and sets were excellent. I would have loved to see Tuesday's version though.

Lois Chiles never really got her due as an actress. She's largely forgotten today.

R78 she was gorgeous. She was always considered a “non-actress” but I actually thought she gave one of the better performances, even if it didn’t take all that much.

It’s one of those movies whose gorgeous costumes and scenery make it worth watching over and over regardless of its merits as an actual film.

The novel is such an overrated piece of crap. Yes, I read it. At Yale.

I agree Lois Chiles never got her due as an actress. Didn't she take some time off to take care of her brother and, thus, her career lost momentum?

I thought she was very good in The Way We Were (also with Redford) and I liked her turn on Dallas as Holly Harwood (love that name). She had great chemistry with both Larry Hagman and Patrick Duffy.

Someone once told me the key to the book "The Great Gatsby" is that the narrator is lying. Is this true?

There’s much I love about the 1974 version, but I understand why so many have problems with it, and I essentially agree that the novel is unfilmable. Translating Fitzgerald’s beautiful prose to the screen? No one’s done it yet.

While I love the atmosphere and tone — it’s beautiful to look at from sets to wardrobe to music — it is too long. Every attempt should’ve been made to shorten it, even cutting seconds from long camera pans.

I liked Redford and Farrow in the roles, as well as the rest of the cast. Mia Farrow was and is heavily criticized, but I always found that unfair. Farrow’s Daisy is unlikable — and Daisy IS unlikable. I honestly think many people want a sweet and lovable Daisy, which is a complete misunderstanding of the novel. To me, Daisy is the villain in the story.

I never understood, however, why the screenwriter changed the order of scenes in the novel. I can’t remember which scenes were moved, but I’m positive that was done. Just never made sense to me to be so literal and so true to the novel, then re-order scenes in the second half of the movie.

I absolutely love the 1974 version. The title sequence is outstanding, with the camera panning over Gatsby’s expensive possessions. And the music that plays, “What’ll I Do?”, is so beautiful and bittersweet... especially once you know that Irving Berlin wrote the song after coming home from his wife’s funeral. To me, it’s a heart-wrenching, lonely, last note to the person he loved most.

What'll I do when you are far away and I'm so blue? What'll I do?

What'll I do when I am wondering who is kissing you what'll I do?

What'll I do with just a photograph to tell my troubles to?

When I'm alone with only dreams of you that won't come true what'll I do?

R82, whoever told you that is full of shit. Nick Carraway is the essence of goodness in the novel, an essentially d3cent man who finds himself in a world that’s not so good.

The 1974 title sequence I mentioned above is in the link. Chokes me up every time I watch it.

R86 Nothing beats my rendition.

[quote] Someone once told me the key to the book "The Great Gatsby" is that the narrator is lying. Is this true?

R82, this is a really long video, but it analyzes the Nick Carraway character (in the more recent Gatsby movie). "Nick Is Not Your Friend" is the title to this video. I think, in the video (character analysis), the narrator says that Nick was caught in a lie, during the time of the car crash, when the mistress was killed, IIRC.

[quote] To me, Daisy is the villain in the story.

R83, that's interesting and true, I think. The obvious bad guys are just who they are. People like Daisy and even Nick are more reprehensible because they know better and still commit crimes of omission, inaction, etc. Causing others to suffer.

I agree the title sequence is really beautiful. It really establishes a sense of longing and also establishes that feeling of emptiness and unattainability.

The 1974 film looked delicious, and the production design, cinematography, and score were great, but it was all ruined by miscasting.

Redford lacked any of Gatsby's slick charm or inner vulnerability. Mia Farrow was neither beautiful enough nor posh enough to play Daisy, not that the role can be played for the screen. Sam Waterston is a good actor, but he played Nick as distant and disapproving, when he should have been besotted with Gatsby and Daisy and their world. Dern doesn't seem upper-class either, or formidable. Karen Black never looked better, but she didn't read as trashy enough, and I can't remember anything about the girl that played Jordan except she looked nice.

The 2013 version is better, gayer, and closer to the book, but it's still more of an interesting failure than a good movie.

[R91] I disagree. I think Nick is disapproving of the entire episode from back to front and that the novel make it clear his hatred of and feelings of grim superiority to the characters. What Fitzgerald does is introduce a kind of off-setting idea that Nick has a reason fro telling you this tale in his own way - in some ways this novel helped invent the idea of the unreliable narrator. Nick is covering up something - some missing piece of the story - and Fitzgerald knows it.

lois chiles stole the movie.....BEAUTY

You can't film "The Great Gatsby", because the camera sees through Daisy from the get-go. That's why they should stop trying to make film versions of this story. Daisy could indeed fairly be called the "villain" of the piece, and she's not what she seems to be for the first 3/4 of the book, but in the book that's obscured by Nick's glamour-struck POV, while in a movie we can't see people through another character's eyes. And if you put Daisy on film, you don't see the radiant creature of the first part of the book, you see a silly, shallow, selfish woman from the moment she steps onto the screen, and unmasking her is redundant.

I really don't know why the 1974 version got Nick so wrong. R92, the Nick of the book is only disapproving in retrospect, at the time of the events, he was besotted, he adored Gatsby and loved Daisy. Sure, he was pulled into their world against his better inclinations, but he was pulled in. In the 1974 movie Nick is as distant and disapproving as Doctor T.J. Eckleburg, and IMHO that has the effect of distancing the audience when they ought to be pulled in to the central romance.

The 1974 was incredibly authentic to the era, especially with all the chosen music in its score. I have big problems with Luhrmann’s 2013 version and his use of modern music In the score. I guess he thought, “This’ll bring the kids into the theatres.” Just doesn’t work for me and in a few years this film will be really dated by the music.

IMO, Carey Mulligan was miscast as Daisy.

A young Gwyneth Paltrow might have been perfect for Daisy.

R88, thanks for that video. I don’t agree with everything in it, but it is fascinating.

Lois Chiles is beautiful, and her screen presence in Gatsby is extraordinary. She did not steal the movie, however.

They went to Manhattan for a change of pace and they went to a hotel so they could day drink. Prohibition and all that.

Yes, Daisy is a villain.

Thanks for that R86. Gary Owens (the announcer on Laugh-In) had an afternoon radio program that I used to like - he was very goofy - and at the time the movie was out he would play that song. Calling it "Waddle I Do". I just loved the song. I found it so hauntingly beautiful. Filled with longing and sadness. I didn't know that about Berlin writing it after coming home from his wife's funeral. No wonder the lost, deep sorrow is expressed so well.

Farrow was much better in "Death on the Nile", and Chiles was much worse.

Two bits of trivia relating to the 1974 version of GREAT GATSBY:

— Ralph Lauren designed the film’s costumes, at least the men’s wardrobe. In 1973-74, Ralph was just entering into the mass-market clothing business. I worked in the mens department of a major department store when his first batch of Gatsby-inspired clothes were offered. They were a bit over the top, style-wise. Personally, I loved it all, but we couldn’t sell any of it to our stuffy male customers.

— In 1973 I was a student intern at Pinewood Studios, where Gatsby was filmed. Lots of the interiors, like Daisy’s billowy white curtain room, are real rooms in the studio’s old mansion house. It’s still there. Also, the huge ash dump that had the famous Dr. Eckleburg Spectacles sign, was a real Pinewood trash pile on the same backlot concrete pad that, in 1967, the volcano from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE had stood on. I recall walking through the dump one day and seeing lots of old 007 props like the plexiglass bed from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and several underwater sleds from THUNDERBALL. Boy, how I wanted to bring those back to the states with me! Nobody cared about saving props back then.

R96, so instead, you get Blythe Danner for Daisy. She was a bit older than Farrow but would have fit it much better.

R102, hmm ... You could be right. Young Blythe Danner:

Ooh, young Blythe Danner actually would have been good.

Yeah, I agree that Blythe Danner would have been a terrific Daisy in 1974! She was so utterly charming, and yes, she could always do a great upper-class.

Now... for those of you who think that Nick is hiding something from the reader, WHAT do you think he's hiding?

Besides his homosexuality, of course. I mean, duh.

R82, I think the Luhrmann version has Nick telling the story to a psychiatrist while he’s in rehab. You’ve been scolded, but I don’t think it’s a preposterous way to read the novel. Just as we have to consider “Lolita”’s Humbert Humbert an unreliable narrator.

No one is truly and thoroughly good, anyway. Everyone has a flaw, a vulnerability, a sin.

[quote]The structural problem with the book is that, when Gatsby finally has his long-hoped-for reunion with Daisy, instead of showing us what happened then, Fitzgerald instead gives us Gatsby’s backstory. So we never really know what they said or did, leaving film versions to draw their own, often faulty, conclusions. The novel is a dramatic doughnut, with an empty center.

A proper director could pull that off, though. Citizen Kane manages something similar by giving us tiny little snippets of glimpses of the backstory (playing in the snow, the sled) that tie into the snowglobe, but leaving so much unexplained, even killing off Kane's wife and son off screen.

Nick sees Gatsby more favorably than he is, and Daisy as more evil than she is, not in a nasty way but in the kind of biased way everyone sees their own lives, and he's not necessarily hiding anything (except his crush on Gatsby, sort of) but he's also not necessarily reliable, either. None of them are. You're supposed to draw your own conclusions based on your own biases.

I don't know that I would call the novel an "empty center" like someone else did above, but it's hit and miss as to whether it pulls off its vague nature. A couple of hints as to the real truth might have helped the structure somewhat.

Bea Arthur sang “What’ll I Do” on an episode of THE GOLDEN GIRLS

[quote]its vague nature

That's what kills it for me in all its formats, the vagueness. No one wanted to love TGG more than I, but I never felt I understood it the way I did, say, the Philip Roth novels I was also reading in the late '60s and early '70s. I knew who Libby and Paul Herz were, for example, or Neil Klugman—Ron and Brenda Patimkin were always a little elusive—in a way I never came to understand the Buchanans, Gatsby, or Nick Carraway.

Aah, you're all boats against the current.

This thread makes me want to reread the book, rather than watch the film.

I thought Mia was pretty good as Daisy: brittle, self absorbed, ruthless. A killer instinct for self preservation. She does a great (to my European ears at least) posh, wealthy American voice.

Me too, R110.

[quote]As bad of an actress as she usually is, Cybill Shepherd might have been well cast as Daisy. She has a vapid quality that could have worked.

She may have looked right for the part, but she would have ruined it once she opened her mouth.

A couple of years later, she did play a different kind of Daisy - Henry James' Daisy Miller - and while she looked right for the part, the film became wobbly whenever she talked.

I bought a copy at a used DVD place and the millennial behind the counter asked if it was a remake of the Leo DiCaprio movie.

R84, so Berlin wrote the song at his wife's funeral in 1912 and then hung on to it for 11 years before letting anyone sing it?

Or did he write it after his second wife's funeral in 1988 and then time travel back to 1923?

And the people who describe his trouble writing the second half of the song in 1923 are lying.

Why do people post things that are obviously untrue and easily checked on the internet?

The 2000 version with MIra Sorvino was better. "Rich girls don't marry poor boys Jay Gatsby."

[quote]R78 Lois Chiles never really got her due as an actress. She's largely forgotten today.

Her strength really was modeling. She had a rather lifeless voice.

I saw it when it came out and remember as a big expensive nothing. Mia's elfin kookiness was all wrong, and she had no chemistry with Robert Redford, who was vacuous.

+1 with r97. Thanks, r88.

What r110 and r112 said, too.

I first read TGG only about 15 years a go. It was one of those "I'll get around to it" books that I finally got to.

I was riveted to it from the first page. I was surprised at how quickly I finished it. It really is a very fast read, but that's what gets me back to what you two wrote, and really because of this entire thread; I think now I'll reread it and take it much slower.

I have to admit it. Aside from Fitzgerald's beautiful use of language that pulled me in like a tractor beam, I loved it equally for what I perceived it to be- a lurid potboiler; pulp fiction cloaked in atmospheric poetry.

[R105], Yes, I have always read Nick as at least bisexual.

I think beyond that he's hiding the simple fact that he was genuinely entranced by the superficial aspects of the people he met that summer - he writes with a sense of ironic detachment that is actually after-the-fact. He's ultimately just as susceptible to being entertained by shiny things. I think his real message is something of a warning: beware charisma - it vetoes character.

Mia is a little off, that's true, and I think it's why she was always in sunglasses in Broadway Danny Rose, because it covers the strange orphan-naif-psychopath look in her eyes.

That look should work for Daisy but it doesn't, I think in part because of that eyeliner that over-emphasized the "this dame can't be trusted" aspect of Daisy's character, plus the severe hairstyle. It's accurate to the period -- rich girls didn't wear the straight bobs the shopgirls did, and they looked matronly even when they were very young -- but she would have looked so much better in a Clara Bow or Colleen Moore style.

I thought the costumes were exquisite.

Remember seeing it as a kid. The scene where Mia starts crying as Redford tosses his pastel shirts in the air caused my 10 yo self to laugh uproariously. The Mum clipped me on the head.

Danger sure has the smugness, but I really like Farrow’s brittle, selfish-child take on Daisy. You could really see her making that impulsive decision to marry Tom.

I agree with the others who say it has a dreamlike quality and that opening song is just perfect.

I guess I’m in the minority about Redford. He was definitely handsome enough, but also remote and eager to please (the lunch at Nick’s) at the same time.

Damn autocorrect. That should be “Danner.”

I think the massive pre-release publicity around the film, which focused on lavish sets and the tie-in between the costumes and the fashion industry helped sharpen the critics' claws before they even saw the movie. Also, there are times when critics think the director has to create some kind of visual equivalent to an author's prose, which is impossible in this case, as others have noted.

The film's bad rep is undeserved. Yes, there are problems: the length, Redford's performance, Dern's coarseness. But it does get a lot of things right, and I would count Farrow's Daisy among them. Mia's brittle, neurotic quality is too much on the surface at the beginning (it's completely right later in the film), but she has a voice that speaks of money as much as a face. If she doesn't have enough chemistry with Redford, that's largely his fault I think, but it also goes to the illusory nature of their rekindled romance anyway. The other outstanding performance is Scott Wilson, though I think Waterston deftly balances reserve and enchantment.

I will say that a young Blythe Danner would have been a fine Daisy, but unfortunately she wasn't considered a "star."

A few possibly interesting pieces of info: the director, Jack Clayton, also did ROOM AT THE TOP, THE PUMPKIN EATER, and what I consider one of the best adaptations of a literary work - THE INNOCENTS. Also, the actress who plays Myrtle's sister is Kathryn Leigh Scott of DARK SHADOWS.

I saw the 1949 version at the Museum of Modern Art years ago - I don't think it had been shown publicly in decades. Shelley Winters - who played Myrtle - was in the audience. The film is mediocre and most of the cast isn't good (Ladd is decent, but no more). After the showing was done, an audience member approached Winters and asked if she thought the film was good. She just shook her head "No."

The only good thing in Luhrmann's film is DiCaprio, which surprised me as I generally dislike his performances. The film itself is just MOULIN ROUGE REDUX.

Chiles really was perfect as Jordan. She was never a great actress but she was from the days when a model attempted to act by learning craft (hitting marks, projecting voice), so history is not going to be cruel to their lack of natural talent. Even at her worst, she's still a presence and not a demerit.

Farrow, OTOH, is a brilliant actress who is miscast as Daisy, and then proceeds to give a weird, jittery performance. Frankly, Daisy should be cast with a non-actor if they ever remake it, as she's an empty vessel (at best) or utterly venal (at worst) but always banal. But they should never make a film of Gatsby again.

Nick’s erotic encounter with the rando he met in the elevator gave me a boner in high school. I had no idea an American author could get away with that in the 1920s. And that’s also when I learned being gay was once considered a behavior, NOT an identity. I wonder if Nick’s “sleepover” is in the latest film version. If so, was it straight-washed for China?

R127 I agree with you about THE INNOCENTS: hands down one of the best screen adaptions ever. I loved the movie but hated the book because of HJ’s purple prose delivered via the histrionic governess. I was SO GLAD her grating internal monologue was left out of the film.

I remember Gene Shalit’s review. He silently stared at the camera. The title appeared. He shook his head. They put up “The Very Good Gatsby.” He shook his head. The Good Gatsby. Head shake. The Okay Gatsby. Head shake. The Lousy Gatsby. Nod. “I’m Gene Shalit.” End.

I normally dislike DiCaprio, but I think he did as good a job as Gatsby as anyone could. He captured the superficial charm of a man who throws the best parties of the Jazz Age and who enraptures Nick with his smile, even against Nick's better judgement. And in the second half of the film, his Gatsby knows he's headed on a course that's bound to end in disaster, but he never once considers turning away and saving himself.

Redford just sort of stood there and looked good, while the story went on around him, while DiCaprio's Gatsby made it all happen.

It's a pity the Luhrman film wasn't a success as a whole, there are some good thing in it.

I agree about DiCaprio, though I really disliked the film, so much so that it made the 1974 version look good. And I'm shocked at all the comments about Lois Chiles. She was a TERRIBLE actress! Wooden and dull. I love Mia in so many things but I do think it's the part that's pretty much unplayable. If the great Betty Field couldn't pull it off, no one could. Part of it is, that if you use the Fitzgerald dialogue, forget it. The flowery prose works fine on the page but is death when you hear actors actually say it. But I agree that the opening sequence is just fantastic. And Sam Waterston was the best thing in it, by far, and Karen Black the worst.

I just can’t watch Luhrman version because the over-saturated cinematography is hideous. It reminds me of those lurid 3D pictures of Jesus and Mother Mary that my Nana use to hang in her living room.

R118 she wasn’t rail thin for a model of that time either; she looked like a “healthy/thin” weight.

If you’ve ever read the Judith Krantz novel SCRUPLES... I always imagined Lois Chiles as the character Melanie.

I always enjoyed it growing up.

Apparently Faye Dunaway wanted/auditioned for Daisy but didn't get it.

Dunaway would have made a fascinating Daisy.

Farrow was good, but I never understood why the men were crazy for her. With Dunaway you would definitely understand.

Lois Chiles and Karen Black overshadow Farrow in my opinion.

Was Mia pregnant during filming?

R137 , I don't think Daisy needed to be that beautiful. She was a WASP and Gatsby wanted entree into that world. That's why I thought a young Gwyneth Paltrow would have been perfect for the role.

Carey Mulligan was so dull and lifeless as Daisy.

R139 except she’s not a WASP!

R139, she would have been two years old.

Well, R142, I did say a "young" Gwyneth Paltrow. R141, GP looks WASPy, IMO.

R143 hmmm really depends on the angle you catch her. She literally looks 50% like her mother and 50% like her father. Though as she’s gotten older she’s begun to look a lot more like her dad.

[quote]R138 Was Mia pregnant during filming?

Yes.

Nice maternity dress:

R139 I agree, I don't think Daisy has to be beautiful, but Dunaway's neurotic complexity (like Evelyn Mulwray) would have been perfect for Daisy.

Also, if you get gorgeous Redford for Gatsby, then Daisy needs to be more than just .... well Mia Farrow.

Blythe Danner as Daisy?

Just no.

Of all things, Lois Chiles was really excellent in Creepshow 2 as an adulterous wife who hits a hitchhiker while racing back home. She's really funny and seems to be having a great time. Really shows off a flair for comedy.

The character of Daisy is so hard to get right on film. It reminds me of the character of Corrine from Flowers in the Attic. Both film versions of that kinda dropped the ball with her character with Victoria Tennant turning up the ice princess vibe so that you knew she was capable of killing her children from the start and Heather Graham playing her so vapid and ditzy that she just came across as an awful actress.

Spoiled, vain, narcissistic, upper class characters are just hard to make likable without really skilled writers and actors working overtime. Most people are naturally turned off by them when they first appear and it takes a lot of work to try and mask their true selfish intentions from the beginning.

Daisy is indeed a difficult part. She would have to be a selfish bitch, but one who first appears to be vulnerable and attracting of male protectiveness. An actress who could transition from soft and girlish to hard and conniving . Does anyone have any suggestions for MODERN actresses that could play Daisy?

[quote]Spoiled, vain, narcissistic, upper class characters are just hard to make likable without really skilled writers and actors working overtime.

I have to ask: did you actually like Daisy in the book?

Karen Carpenter was supposed to make her film debut in this but Richard insisted on being Gatsby so it fell apart

I did not R152, but film is a different medium. Books can keep you more on your toes as to a character's true motivations, but on film, one side eye from the actor playing the role and they've given everything away.

A character can be opaque on the page without losing the reader. It is harder to do that in a drama.

So characters like Daisy are hard to make work dramatically unless you really rejigger how the story works.

A character from The Great Gatsby reminds you of a character from Flowers in the Attic?

That's like comparing Catcher in the Rye to Hollywood Wives.

Lois Chiles seems like a perfectly okay person, but she never would have made it as an actress without her looks. In fact, her career went pretty quickly downhill after a high profile start.

The most life I saw her display was on DALLAS. And when you’re most believable on a nighttime soap, well...

R156, careful, your pretentiousness is showing.

Carey Mulligan is too grounded an actress to work as Daisy. Hard to think of any current actress in her late 20s who could pull off Daisy.

Much of the Redford version is done as VoiceOver. Farrow's voice was a big problem but Danner could do justice to the written lines.

Any time Daisy would have one of her histrionic scenes I wanted to scream "Take a fucking librium!" .Daisy was supposed to be this ravishing enchantress who was morally corrupt deep inside , Mia gave us simpering or screeching . Nuance was not in her range. I fell in love with Sam Waterson in this , but I never felt that way about Redford in any movie he was in . I dont know why ,I saw he was gorgeous,but to me he was just not sexy . I always thought Nick Nolte would have been good as Gatsby .

r151 - I think Naomi Watts would have been a great Daisy around the time of Mulholland Drive. That audition scene shows how much Watts can bring to a scene. Brilliant! Fragile, beautiful, sexy, cunning.

Joan Rivers should have done it. Today, Melissa can do it.

It was a terrible movie. Mia Farrow ruined it, but Redford was like a mannequin. Waterson seemed good by comparison, but he wasn't that good. Dear Karen Black was fun by miscast, Bruce Dern was inept but better than Redford was. Lois Chiles was the best thing in it.

The worst part of it was that the makers didn't seem to understand the novel. There was zero jazz-age feeling, zero passion between the leads, and the camerawork was playing Henry James rather than Fitzgerald. It was plain wrong.

Redford would have seemed okay because Jay is a cypher. It was the hymen-like opacity in Daisy's part that made the movie inert, shallow and inauthentic.

Not that I like the novel much. But Tennessee Williams thought this version of the movie was the tops, I remember. But it was at that "alcoholism to death" period of his artistic judgment.

HATE HATE HATED IT! It may have been better liked if they hadn't hyped it as much as they did, which was ENDLESS.

As has been said, Redford was totally out of his element. His constipated acting was embarrassing, didn't matter who the woman he was pretending to long for was, he had a major stick up the ass. Btw, the Gatsby hair dye they used on Redford was very close to his natural reddish brown.

Naomi Watts would have been a good choice if there'd been a movie version made in her late 20's/early 30's. She's wonderful.

I remember MAD magazine did a parody called the Great Gasbag (I think), and the caricatures of of Mia Farrow and Karen Black absolutely terrified me. I had flashbacks of it when I finally saw the film. MAD’s comic strip version was ACCURATE.

I've read The Great Gatsby and I've read Flowers in the Attic.

It's not pretentious to realize the good writing in Gatsby and contrasting it to the dreck that is Attic.

Lois Chiles got her start as William Paley's mistress. Eventually she married Richard Gilder, a very rich financier, so she's here. She's still here.

Just rewatched it cuz of this thread.

Feel the same, enjoyable but highly flawed, Farrow miscast, Chiles and Black outshine her BUT this time I hated Sam Waterston.

Jesus, I wanted to punch him in the head all through it.

I usually like Sam.

I like both versions. The 2013 Baz Luhrmann version is the ONLY Luhrmann movie I can stomach. And it's really no different than the others. But I have so much Great Gatsby appreciation to brink to it, it's just another fun illustration. 1974 is a bit leaden but it has a lot of good things in it. I don't like the gauzy cinematography, however. Luhrmann matched the novel's "tone" better in cinematography.

Oh, and I almost forgot. Karen Fucking Black. No movie with Karen can be all bad.

I'm trying to figure out what Bruce Dern saw in Karen Black. But then I remember back at home there was Mia Farrow.

Ugh

What a choice (like a gay nightmare):

"You have to fuck one of them or I'll blow you away sucker, Black or Farrow?"

And then you wake up screaming and clawing the air like Tippi Hedren.

I miss actresses like Karen Black. She could be in the worst, most low budget, poorly written piece of shit and you knew at least she'd be able to turn in an interesting performance to make watching it worthwhile.

R173 - they are actors playing characters, dear. The characters are very plausible couple.

Okay, I finally figured it out (with a little help from my stash)

Black shoulda played DAISY and Mia should have played MYRTLE!

That would have been the shit.

I love Karen Black.

But not like that.

Mia was fine as Daisy IMO.

R175 It's Hollywood dear, no one gives a shit about plausible couples (HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MOVIE?)

Why was the Dern CHARACTER wanting to fuck the Black CHARACTER?

Did the book describe Myrtle as cross-eyed and weird looking?

If so, then now I COMPLETELY understand

To each his own. I think Black is (was) sexy and the point is, she is sexually adventurous. She is Tom's excuse to SLUM. Do you know what that means? Fuck a trashy broard. Keep on as a mistress. Also, Tom really enjoys the humiliation it causes Mr. Wilson. Tom can and does fuck a variety of woman. Of course he wants a tart like Black-Mrytle. But you're probably the cunt of withered ass clamped twat who never enjoys some rough trade? Right?

I think Mia played it all jittery and nervy because Daisy is given a stutter in one line: “I’m p-paralyzed with happiness!”

"Lois Chiles got her start as William Paley's mistress..."

I thought she got her start as one of Sydney Pollack's whores for The Way We Were - totally inappropriate looks for a 1930s character in that movie, but if the director wants it....... ;)

R159 Emma Stone as Daisy could work.

What the movie needed was a young Vivien Leigh.

Baz’s version is showy, theatrical and of course, anachronistic with the soundtrack. While Leo is too obnoxious a person to play Gatsby. So both versions are failed attempts to capture the novel.

I've always liked the movie, but Redford being obsessed with Mia FOR YEARS never made sense. It should have been the opposite, Mia stalking and obsessed with Redford.

That was my perception as a teen reacting to the movie, not the book.

R160

you rang?

R180 i LOVE rough trade, as long as it doesn't look like Karen Black

can' get enough

I don't understand why Dern is with Black, not because Karen is unfuckable (she's definitely fuckable), but Bruce has batshit crazy at home, why screw batshit crazy cross town?

R189, it’s classic straight-man behavior: he has a type. If he were a real person, you’d find out that his mother was like that, too.

Myrtle is just a convenient stop on the road for Tom (one of many), and roadkill for Daisy.

I've never read the whole book (to my defense, I'm German and it's not that well-known here). However, I read a few summaries/interpretations of the novel after watching Luhrmann's adaptation, and was surprised to see Gatsby described as a charming (if only on the surface) and intriguing personality. My gut reaction to DiCaprio in the role was: creepy, slimy, irritating and extremely wooden. Every gesture, every expression looked put on, and after the 5th 'old sport', I wanted to punch him.

I liked him in some of his other roles, though (enjoyed his acting and found him attractive and likeable), so I wonder if that was the vibe he was going for; if Gatsby coming across as creepy and fake right from the start was his interpretation of the character.

R186, an obsessed person sees what he wants to see. Gatsby in love with who he thinks Daisy is, with what she represents. It's appropriate that Mia as Daisy isn't the most beautiful woman in the world, or even a very nice person.

That's an interesting observation, R192, although as an actor DiCaprio often comes across as deliberately remote and unlikable. Perhaps Luhrmann cast him for that very reason.

Maybe Gabourey Sidibe should be Daisy.

Just don’t do scenes where she has to be carried.

"Redford would have seemed okay because Jay is a cypher. It was the hymen-like opacity in Daisy's part that made the movie inert, shallow and inauthentic. "

It should have been the other way around. Gatsby is the character who goes thorough all the dramatic emotions and has all the shock-inducing backstory reveals, Daisy remains a passive little cypher until the final act. We never see Daisy's inner life and we see damn little of her actions, she's like a pretty diamond necklace that Gatsby has spent years plotting to buy or steal.

Which is why the acting in the 1974 version sucks - Redford stands there as if he were the precious object of obsession, and Farrow tries to liven things up constantly emoting, when her character should be a glamorous blank. Really, they would have done better to have Lois Chiles play Daisy, as she was beautiful enough that you'd believe a sane mane would obsess over her for years, and she couldn't display a character's inner life if they shot her dog to make her cry on camera. But that would have required a Gatsby who was giving a good, solid, affecting performance.

I like the 1974 version, although I think Mia was pretty bad, and Redford was wooden, as usual. I’d rather watch this Family Guy version than the DiCaprio abortion.

Part 2

I remember several years ago seeing a young Brit actress in numerous projects. Her name was Juno Temple. She might have worked as Daisy.

Thanks for that R196, especially for your thoughtfulness including Part Two.

I really think it was a missed opportunity not to cast Blythe Danner as Daisy. But as mentioned above, she just did not have the A List star power they wanted. She actually played Zelda Fitzgerald in "The Last of the Belles" on PBS with Richard Chamberlin as F. Scott (1974) but one of my all time favorite performances of hers was in "Eccentricities of a Nightingale" by Tennessee Williams (1976) she was absolutely brilliant in that.

Daisy was a brunette in the novel. Stockard Channing had the pedigree.

Stockard Channing comes across as much too strong and intelligent to play Daisy. When you hear Daisy complain that Tom has hit her, she should seem helpless and in need of a man to rescue her, while you'd expect Channing to be plotting some dreadful comeuppance. Which would succeed.

It occurs to me that Marilyn Monroe in her early period might have made a good Daisy. The breathless, elegant, yet conniving Miss Caswell - with a few more brain cells and a blue-blood background - could have caught the tone.

Marilyn could never play a blue-blood! She came from trash, and never even tried to play anyone from the upper crust. Most of the characters she played came from low origins, some of them were still there.

[quote]R182 I thought [Lois Chiles] got her start as one of Sydney Pollack's whores for The Way We Were - totally inappropriate looks for a 1930s character in that movie, but if the director wants it....... ;)

Well, I doubt she did her own hair, makeup and wardrobe.

Or are you saying there were no tall, darkly beautiful women in that era (??)

Ginevra King, the model for Daisy Buchanan.

[quote]R195 Really, they would have done better to have Lois Chiles play Daisy, as she was beautiful enough that you'd believe a sane mane would obsess over her for years, and she couldn't display a character's inner life if they shot her dog to make her cry on camera.

I believe the actress was considered for both Daisy and Jordan. Probably they decided it was better to have a name play the female lead.

[quote]r205 Ginevra King

I assume the mom was still coming out of sedation in the hospital when she named her.

Or maybe it was just a slurred request for a gin and tonic?

"Ginevra (and her grandmother) were named for a da Vinci painting of a 15th century Florence aristocrat Ginevra de’ Benci. "

Well, that will make you friends on the schoolyard, for sure.

Opinions?

Sorry, R210, I tried listening to that. Not interesting, IMO.

At R205's link, Ginevra King is wearing an early version of Princess Bea's famous toilet-seat hat.

Interesting, all the different points of view, engendered by this one film. Overall, it must be a better film than most, since it has inspired so much discussion.

In retrospect, I think it was more an adaptation of surfaces, dwelling on the look of the era, more than the core feelings of the characters. It’s hard to make a film taking place in a certain historical period, without dwelling on the accessories of that period. Every story is about characters interacting, not about their clothes and vehicles.

And Fitzgerald, as several have pointed out, just leaves too much to the imagination in his presentation. Since film is a visual medium, it tries to compensate, by creating visuals to fill in the emotional gaps. We never know what happened between Gatsby and Daisy. Nick has always been a sketchy character, with a number of unexplored aspects.

Perhaps Fitzgerald’s true power is his ability to lure the reader into speculation. He knows exactly how much to present, leaving imagination to fill in the rest. As if it’s some iridescent soap bubble, tantalizing with multiple colors and tones, entrancing us to add solid details, which of course come to nothing, because of its very nature.

So we beat on, trying to make it something it isn’t. If it weren’t iridescent, it wouldn't still have such a hold on us, nearly a century after it was written.

R210, that vid is ok, but the other professor was far more interesting, organized, and insightful.

This one had me rolling my eyes from the beginning when he brought up the Kardashians and Ryan Lochte so he could sound like the cool teacher. In the end, I don’t think he gave me anything I didn’t know or haven’t heard before.

Fun fact: Mia Farrow as Daisy was on the first ever cover of People Magazine.

Great post, r213. Thanks

Thank You, r210.

Gatsby's "shame" of his poor beginnings is even more tragic, mistaken, misguided because TGG ultimately argues that it's the Buchanons, for all their position and wealth who are truly villainous and shame is something they'd never feel.

I think they should have gone with Bob Evans' first choice Ali MacGraw and made Gatsby into a comedy.

"I really think it was a missed opportunity not to cast Blythe Danner as Daisy. But as mentioned above, she just did not have the A List star power they wanted."

Mia Farrow was nowhere near A List in 1973. Gatsby was a comeback for her. She never really had a movie career that worked at that point other than Rosemary's Baby. The Woody Allen movies was her best work, best opportunities. Even the she wasn't A List.

[quote]R218 I think they should have gone with Bob Evans' first choice Ali MacGraw and made Gatsby into a comedy.

Jay & Daisy & Nick & Jordan & Tom & Myrtle

I loved it, saw it three times in the theater and probably the only kid there. It was just a glitzy soap opera. Didn't change my life but it entertained me which is exactly what you want a movie to do.

Ali is so beautiful even today at eighty, but what a lousy actress. Woefully awful.

R198, Juno Temple is an excellent actress. Where has she been lately?

Was Mia Farrow ever A-List? Other than Ro’s Baby all of her movies really depended on someone else pushing the movie forward.

I'm in the minority because I adored Carey Mulligan Daisey. She could use Gatsby as an escape but never blinked at returning to her station in life. The gorgeous costumes and pixie cut helped sell her, but I just overall really enjoy her as an actress.

The 2013 film is one of those decadent escapes that I sometimes like to fall into. Another one is 2006's Marie Antoinette. Some high calorie movies that I watch every 4-6 months.

r193 so true. Think back to the hot guy or popular girl from high school. We might have seen them as some great beauty worth idolizing, but once you've aged and had a clearer look into the past, you'll find that nothing was as shinny or pretty as you remember.

I was just thinking that it was lit and looked EXACTLY like the cinematography in Julia (1977) And sure enough- the same cinematographer- Douglas Slocombe...

It has that gauzy quality. Lit to perfection.

I did like Carey’s performance in AN EDUCATION...that role suited her...

227 posts on this?

I guess it's the MIA aspect that draws the DL crowds.

R217, Gatsby's shame over his origins and fake backstory are desperately sad, because in 1920s New York it was considered way, way cool to be a self-made man! He'd have been far more popular and respected as a self-made millionaire, than as the son of old money.

Nobody cared about his origins but Daisy, and he'd internalized her feelings. Or, what he thought her feelings were, I doubt she ever gave a rat's ass about his lack of breeding and polish, she just cared that he couldn't support her in the style to which she was accustomed. She only cared about money, but he thought he had to actually become a member of the upper classes to win her, so he spent years denying his true self and building a fake identity, all because he didn't really understand why she rejected him.

Yes. Some (if not all) characters in the book are ciphers. and human identities are ephemeral like the weather conditions, music, and soot formations in the story. Clocks and ashes are major symbols in the novel. Depressing! The unreliable characters have imposter syndrome and existential angst to the nth degree, but this is toned down in the films to make Nick, Daisy, Gatsby et al. solid and palatable to mainstream audiences. Most Redford/DiCaprio fans do NOT want to watch their crushes in a moody, nihilistic tone poem.

R210, R214, Have there been a thorough analysis of the underlying themes of the novel and film re the class structure? Some have interpreted Gastby as a 1st or 2nd generation Jewish immigrant which is supposedly the real reason he was rejected by Daisy. He would never be apart of her social class no matter how lavish his parties. Think Ralph Lauren's or Calvin Klein's attempts to identify with elite WASP values.

R231 there are about eleventyzillion class analyses of Great Gatsby, my dear. It's a very dark Horatio Alger narrative. Don't forget Gatsby kicks off his rise as a ship hand companion/gigolo.

Here are the Cliff's Notes for "The Great Gatsby." Not saying I agree, but here they are.

Who would DL consider a real life Jay Gatsby? Or Daisy and Tom?

He's kind of old, but maybe Harvey Levin as Gatsby.

R235 Interesting answer! I wonder what stud would be his Daisy...

R236 , Justin Bieber.

On second thought, not Justin Bieber (as Harvey Levin's Daisy). Bieber has too much of his own money.

Aaron Carter as Daisy.

There was even an African American film version, wasn’t it? Called “G”.

[quote]Was Mia Farrow ever A-List? Other than Ro’s Baby all of her movies really depended on someone else pushing the movie forward.

There really wasn't A lists like that in those days. Established big movie stars did TV. She was on Payton Place and being only 3 networks, it was seen by 40 or 50 million a night. Then she went right into starring in movies.

Didn't she also do "Peter Pan" in the mid 1970s?

"There really wasn't A lists like that in those days. Established big movie stars did TV"

R241, are you twelve years old? There were PLENTLY of A-List starts back then and NONE of them did TV. Mia Farrow just happened to graduate from PEYTON Place to one good movie, Rosemary's Baby, which had been a best seller. The End.

R242 I don't recall ever hearing about Farrow doing Peter Pan. It couldn't have been worse than Allison Williams version I suppose.

....

Farrow had A-list fame, though: she was the daughter of a movie star, and Frank Sinatra's ex-wife.

[quote]There were PLENTLY of A-List starts back then and NONE of them did TV.

OK.

Faye did that Aimee Semple MacBlahBlah TV movie.

Before that she did a TV movie about Wallis Simpson.

Her whole career was kind of up and down, always.

Lee Remick did DAMN YANKEES on TV.

In the 1970s, if a movie star started doing TV, that meant they were washed up in movies. Not that someone like Rock Hudson didn't have a good run on TV, when light comedies went out of fashion in movies and gritty reality came in, he did "MacMillain and Wife" and was on for six years.

So that was the decade when movie stars started to realize that maybe TV wasn't that bad after all, but there was still a very clear division between movie actors and TV actors, and movie acting was considered far more presitigious. And lucrative.

Was Faye viewed as a traitor? Michelle Pfeiffer did a TV movie in the late 1980s as well, didn't she? Or maybe it was a miniseries.

Pfeiffer started out in television

Yes, but she was a movie star by the late 1980s, so it stands out that she did some TV then when she was one of the top females in movies.

It certainly beats the Alan Ladd and utterly awful DiCaprio editions. And when Daisy goes off scott-free and is swallowed up by the crowd in her last scene...well,. it's pretty near brilliant.

Jack Clayton had a stroke a couple of years after he directed this, and wasn't able to get another movie made until 1983, almost a decade later. He only directed 7 feature films between 1959 and 1987.

Mia's movie career dive-bombed in the 70s because she lived in England and the movie industry dived in there in the 70s, so she was in a lot of crap. Gatsby was made in. England. That's why she was able to do it.

[quote][R242] I don't recall ever hearing about Farrow doing Peter Pan. It couldn't have been worse than Allison Williams version I suppose.

See for yourself...PLUS a song.

"Wendy" jumped in front of a train a few years ago.

I thought Gatsby was filmed in Newport, Rhode Island [R257]. They use Rosecliff for the exterior of Gatsby's mansion, as I recall.

The outdoor party scenes were filmed in Newport, I know someone who worked on the film.

But maybe interiors were shot in London, the British film industry was having trouble and studio spaces were probably going cheap. "Star Wars" was shot there a few years later, on a nothing budget.

ALERT:

The Rosecliff and Marble House mansions in Newport, Rhode Island, were used for Gatsby's house while scenes at the Buchanans' home were filmed at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire, England. One driving scene was shot in Windsor Great Park, UK. Other scenes were filmed in New York City and Uxbridge, Massachusetts.

Thanks, OP. I enjoyed the movie and agree with most of the comments here.

Mia was the biggest weakness. This was supposedly the hottest role in Hollywood. If Dunaway or Christie couldn't do it, they should have hired an unknown talent.

To clarify some of the info above: Virtually all the interiors of the 1974 film were shot at Pinewood Studios, in the town of Uxbridge outside of London. As I mentioned upthread, Daisy’s curtain room was an actual room in the Pinewood Mansion. Gatsby’s garage is the Pinewood Mansion garage. It’s all still there today.

With the exception of the outdoor party/mansion/dock shots and Nick’s cottage scenes that were filmed in Newport, RI, all of the exteriors were shot at Pinewood too, including Myrtle’s gas station, the ash dump, the golf course, etc. There were also a few driving scenes shot near NYC, and, as I recall, one shot of the Plaza Hotel entrance on the Central Park side of the building.

I think they used Marble House for some interiors.

I just can't imagine Faye Dunaway as Daisy. I mean she was a fab actress back then and not the camp monster she became, but she just doesn't fit my idea of Daisy! Daisy should appear to be girlish, innocent, and helpless, at least at first, and Faye can't have looked girlish and innocent when she was in kindergarten.

Mia was fine.

Apparently she hated the wig.

Because she couldn't plait it.

Is Farrow's daughter Daisy named after Ftzgerald's?

Mia was perfectly cast. Talk about having "the sound of money" in her voice!

The 59th Street Bridge scene was gorgeous with all those vintage cars.

"Mia was perfectly cast. Talk about having "the sound of money" in her voice! "

I disagree, I don't think she came off as particularly upper-crust.

And her voice was fluttery and whiny.

R270, regarding the old cars used in the 1974 Gatsby NYC scenes, I recall reading about the fellow who lent his valuable yellow 1928 Rolls Royce Phantom 1 to the crew for filming. The car was shipped to Pinewood for close-ups, and then to New York City for driving scenes.

Anyhow, the car’s owner had always babied this work of art on wheels, and when it was rolled of it’s trailer in crowded midtown Manhattan, it created a giant crowd among the locals. But the worst was when the guy had to drive the huge Rolls Royce through crowded New York City traffic to the set. He was certain the taxis and congestion would cause an immediate accident but, to his pleasant surprise, traffic actually cleared out of the way for the Rolls... in even the busiest streets! There was such respect and awe that no one dared get too close.

Didn’t we all.

^^ godDAMN IT, that was in response to

[quote]R266 Mia was fine. Apparently she hated the wig.

True, R257. However, wherever Mia lived, she was simply to dull dull dull to be a true movie star.

It's a pity the silent version is lost. Would have been interesting to see a version made during the decade about which the book was written.

"Jack Clayton had a stroke a couple of years after he directed this, and wasn't able to get another movie made until 1983, almost a decade later. He only directed 7 feature films between 1959 and 1987."

This is from Wikipedia:

"Clayton looked set for a brilliant future, and he was highly regarded by peers and critics alike, but a number of overlapping factors hampered his career. He was a notably 'choosy' director, who by his own admission "never made a film I didn't want to make", and he repeatedly turned down films (including Alien) that became huge hits for other directors. But he was also dogged by bad luck and bad timing – the Hollywood studios labelled him as 'difficult', and studio politics quashed a string of planned films in the 1970s, which were either taken out of his hands, or cancelled in the final stages of preparation. In 1977, he suffered a double blow – his current film was cancelled just two weeks before shooting was due to begin, and a few months later he suffered a serious stroke which robbed him of the ability to speak, and put his career on hold for five years."

I met Clayton when he was prepping for SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES and he told me that he once threw a chair out of the office window of a studio exec who cancelled one of his projects at the last minute.

His next film features one of Maggie Smith's best performances - THE LONELY PASSION OF JUDITH HEARNE, with Bob Hoskins. Smith had a small role in Clayton's 1964 film THE PUMPKIN EATER as one of Peter Finch's affairs.

Anyone else here seen OUR MOTHER'S HOUSE from 1967 with Dirk Bogarde and Pamela Franklin (and a very young Mark Lester)?

R277, now that's a memorable movie. Pamela Franklin is terrific as the young girl who appoints herself the head of a family of children who decide to conceal their mother's death from the outside world. Bogarde can't really pass himself off as lower class, but he's very creepy as the man who shows up claiming to be the brood's long-lost father.

I was struck by how successfully Cary Mulligan delivered her lines and I was making comparisons with Farrow’s terrible performance while watching Mulligan. I liked Bruce Dern in the 1974 version. He’s never looked sexier in my opinion. He looked like a sexy, muscly bully and that’s Tom’s appeal for Daisy. He protects her from Gatsby’s chaos.

And I'm opposite, Carrie Mulligan can star in "The Invisible Woman" and was non-existent in the Gatsby remake and Mia was luminous.

Very first issue of People Magazine.

Face it, Daisy is impossible to play as written. Under the cruel glare of the camera the audience sees through her long before Nick the narrator does, and nobody's voice actually "sounds like money". Plus, the actresses usually cast as upper class usually read as sophisticated and intelligent, two things Daisy can never seem to be. Daisy really is the "little fool" she thinks she isn't, she's just not happy with the little fool's lot in life.

So while I know the Daisy of the novel is described as "not beautiful", frankly, for a film to work they best way to approach the role would be to cast someone staggeringly beautiful, and preferably, wooden - a blank slate that viewers can project feelings onto. Since a film can't capture the magic of Nick's besotted prose, a film could do worse than to cast someone so beautiful that the audience (or some part of the audience) turns off the critical parts of their minds when they look at her. And face it, neither Farrow nor Mulligan ever had that effect on anyone.

Great post, r281.

In a DL thread just before Lurhmann's 2012 version was released, a DLer described Mulligan as "Potato-Faced Mulligan."

I hate to admit it, but that made me giggle. Worse, that description affected how I saw her in TGG. Still, even if I hadn't been spoiled by that description, I STILL wouldn't have thought Mulligan was pretty enough to be Daisy, nor did I think Mulligan was exciting to watch.

To me, Mulligan was woefully miscast as Daisy, but not enough to spoil the film for me. As I stated earlier, I went with what Lurhmann was doing and LOVED his TGG

A lot of this really is Redford's fault. He doesn't bring romantic longing or intensity to role. The right actor would make you believe this Daisy was everything he wanted.

I too remember the "potato faced" comment. The poster was correct.

Casting Mulligan as Bathsheba in the remake of Far From The Madding Crowd created the same issue.

However she did convincingly project the character's resolve and competence as a landowner learning the ropes, which Julie Christie couldn't in the 1968 version, even though Christie had the looks for the part.

I liked Mulligan in Madding and An Education. I think some of you are harsher on her looks than the intended audience.

I think Mulligan is quite pretty, myself, she has a sweet, soft little face that's very appealing.

In a regular-girl sort of way, she definitely does NOT have the sort of face that would make a straight man obsess over her for years and years. And they gave her this awful yellow wig in "Gatsby", which didn't flatter her face or look natural with her coloring. Daisy shouldn't look like a bleached blonde.

"A lot of this really is Redford's fault. He doesn't bring romantic longing or intensity to role"

Definitely. That's why Ryan O'Neal would have been perfect for the role - he does that romantic longing shit to perfection. It would be an Peyton Place reunion for him and Mia, better yet, get Ali MacGraw and so a Love Story reunion. Clip Ali's lines so she doesn't have to talk much.

Didn't someone upthread write that the novel tells us Daisy is "not beautiful"?

R14 - You are not alone!

I remember the moment in the beginning of the movie at the big party, after Gatsby summons Nick to his study. When he gets there you see the back of Gatsby, who then turns abound says "hello old sport". The audience I saw it was mostly female. When he turned around, you heard this big inhale from the audience. Redford has just come off TWWE and he was so beautiful.

Not so much without the bleach, R291.

Bad skin.

With sun damage too!

Redford was only 37 in Gatsby, looked like 47.

He’s like a modern George Brent. Bland personality, but photogenic enough to be a believable romantic lead for the leading lady.

I was really impressed with the looks of John Devlin, who plays the guy who instructs Waterston into the elevator. He was briefly on All My Children. That one scene was very suggestive.

[quote]Tennessee Williams loved it, and even said it "surpassed the novel."

Tennessee drank a lot.

Didn't Williams also think Boom was the best film adaptation of his works?

Nicole Diver in TENDER IS THE NIGHT and Gloria Patch in THE BEAUTIFUL AND DAMNED are clearly based on Zelda. Butmost Fitzgerald scholars think that while a bit of Daisy is based on Zelda (who also said of her own daughter, "I hope she grows up to be a fool--a beautiful little fool"), but they also think the primary inspiration was Fitzgerald's college love, the beautiful and snobbish Chicago heiress Ginevra King. Although Ginevra let Fitzgerald pay court to her after they met in St. Paul for a winter break from college, because he went to the right schools and was so handsome, he wasn't rich enough to be considered seriously as marriage material, and that deeply wounded him. What also made her particularly like Daisy was that went on to marry a very rich man (William Mitchell, the director of Texaco Oil) who cheated on her almost immediately. She later divorced him and married John T. Pirie, Jr., an heir to the Carson, Pirie & Scott fortune.

His romance with Ginevra King had a deep psychic effect on Fitzgerald, and he based many of his main female characters--often rich, inaccessible beauties--on her, in works like "Winter Dreams," THIS SIDE OF PARADISE, and THE GREAT GATSBY. THIS SIDE OF PARADISE was a huge bestseller, and it became well known that the hero's first love, Isabelle Borgé, was based on King, which greatly increased her glamor in high Chicago society even more.

Later in life, King (then married to Pirie) visited Fitzgerald in his office in Hollywood, and the meeting was apparently disastrous. he found her still an egomaniac but no longer considered that that glamorous or enchanting, just tiresome. Apparently at one point she asked him if she was the basis for any of the characters in THE BEAUTIFUL AND DAMNED, and he responded, "Well, which bitch do you think you are?"

[Quote] the beautiful and snobbish Chicago heiress Ginevra King

Someone lied to Ginerva.

It's part of the tragic impact of the novel that Daisy isn't exceptional or pretty or good. She is a class totem, with a vagina. To Gatsby she is the desired and unattainable other - having her would suggest Gatsby's completion, safety, grace. It's mechanical, not deep. It's doomed to fail. Fitzgerald created poetry to "dress up" the set up, but Fitzgerald knew how ugly and basic it is at the core. It's a fucking nightmare.

Several times.

[Quote] Daisy isn't exceptional or pretty or good. She is a class totem, with a vagina.

I smell a role for Kylie Jener.

R304 - I bet Kendall is the better actress.

Fitzgerald’s work has not aged as well as Hemingway’s.

Khloe IS Myrtle

Love to to see some the gargoyles here criticizing Redford's looks.

That shot is more forgiving of his skin. Good going, stranger at r308.

Redford’s suit by Ralph Lauren, BTW.

So what if they are r308. If an actor doesn’t want people critiquing his looks, he shouldn’t be in the business.

If the film had been made in the 40s, Gene Tierney would have been a fantastic Daisy. Any ideas for a 1940s Gatsby?

^ Tyrone Power. He couldn't act his way out of a paperbag, but what a pretty guy.

Fifteen years ago, Natalie Portman would have been a very good Daisy. Exquisitely beautiful but rather wooden and remote: That's right in her wheelhouse.

Besides being gorgeous, Tyrone had a very likeable but strangely artificial quality. He might have made a very good Gatsby.

What about Errol Flynn as Tom in the 1940s version?

There WAS a 1940s version! With Alan Ladd! And you're right, Tyrone Power would have been better casting. Surface charm and good looks, he could pull out some depths off feeling and grit on occasion, and female viewers would have swooned when he got romantic.

Nobody ever talks about the 1949 "Gatsby" film, I don't think anyone's seen it in decades.

The '49 movie prints have disappeared or it's just not shown on TV?

Oh, you're right, there is one. With William Powell. Doesn't look like it's easily streamable, but the DVD is at Amazon.

Sorry--it was the lost '26 version that had Powell. Would have loved to see the contemporary take on the novel.

The trailer for the 1926 version is the only footage that survives.

[quote]So what if they are [R308]. If an actor doesn’t want people critiquing his looks, he shouldn’t be in the business.

Yawn.

Tyrone is his 30s was much handsomer, not so girly as in R315's pic. Errol Flynn was far too superficial an actor (more than Power) to be convincing as Jay Gatsby.

Leo DiCaprio was too old for the part...Redford even more so...how old is Gatsby supposed to be?

Flynn was mentioned for the role of Tom - not Gatsby R323.

Google told me "around 30" R324.

We don't know how old Gatsy is supposed to be, maybe thirty-ish. The book is set in, what, 1924-25? And Gatsby had met and fallen for Daisy while in uniform for WW1, which would have been somewhere between 1917-1919. So he may have been under 30, according to the book's timeline.

The thing is, most of the characters would have been VERY young, Daisy would probably have been under 25 when she met Gatsby for the second time, and Gatsby and Tom and Nick might have still been under 30. But when making a movie for modern audiences the roles at least would be cast a bit older, because modern viewers just don't believe that men in their late 20s can be self-made millionaires or that women in their early 20s can be sick of their marriages, etc.

What was up with that scene with Gatsby's bodyguard who takes Nick up to see Gatsby?

I'm the giggling psycho hit man, preying on an innocent old crone in a wheelchair....

In 1926 George Cukor directed a stage adaptation that starred Florence Eldridge as Daisy. It was well reviewed and ran for a few months. Gatsby was James Rennie, who was married to Dorothy Gish. Eldridge married Fredric March in 1927. Here she is in 1922--

[quote] [Redford]’s like a modern George Brent. Bland personality, but photogenic enough to be a believable romantic lead for the leading lady.

I never understood Brent's popularity. Bland, true -- but nowhere near as "photogenic" as Redford, who was actually stunningly beautiful.

He looks pretty photogenic to me.

Brent was also a lard ass, fat fat fat.

As far as I can tell, R330, George Brent's only job was being innocuous while his leading lady--usually Bette Davis--walked off with the picture. Not a bad gig, if your ego could handle it.

From the 1949 Great Gatsby.

The only thing I remember from the film is that they show the accident with Myrtle.

When asked about her divorce from George Brent, Ann Sheridan replied, “Brent bent.”. What could she have meant?

bent meant cock sucker

Someone should do a version set in the late 1970s, where Gatsby is a coke dealer who has rock stars and Andy Warhol at his parties, and who loves an unhappily married society woman. Think of the fashions they could put on the screen, the music they could put on the soundtrack, and the scenes set at Studio 54!

They could also dot a few extras with Kaposi lesions and refer to absent friends being sick with who knows what, to give the film an atmosphere of coming doom.

r337 gee what fun

Sheridan harridan

[quote]Someone should do a version set in the late 1970s, where Gatsby is a coke dealer who has rock stars and Andy Warhol at his parties, and who loves an unhappily married society woman. Think of the fashions they could put on the screen, the music they could put on the soundtrack, and the scenes set at Studio 54!

Bradley Cooper & GaGa!

R336, thanks for the information.

I have never heard anything about Brent being anything other than heterosexual....hmmm...

"Nobody ever talks about the 1949 "Gatsby" film, I don't think anyone's seen it in decades."

I mentioned seeing it in my post above. A screening at the Museum of Modern Art back in the 80's. It hadn't been shown in decades. Shelly Winters - who played Myrtle - came to the screening. The film isn't good - Ladd can't manage Gatsby's obsessiveness, Betty Field is just OK, the production looks almost like a B-movie at times. An audience member went up to Winters after the screening asking if he liked the film. She shook her head "no."

Aw, that poor audience member. Was he demented?

Other than the dreamy cinematography, yes OP.

"Betty Field is just OK"

I LOVE BETTY FIELD!!!

I love Betty Field too, but she's not a great Daisy. Sorry.

Betty Field was great in PEYTON PLACE as Selena Cross’ mother.

Was Betty a boozer? She aged fast.

I only know Betty Field from Bus Stop and Peyton Place. It would be interesting to see her in Gatsby when she was a young actress.

Gatsby was only about five or six years prior to Bus Stop.

She was also in BUTTERFIELD 8 with Liz Taylor. She played Mildred Dunnock’s neighbor.

I'm not entirely liking the idea of a late '70s GATSBY, but I'm not hating it, either.

I guess you're right R350. She looked so maternal! Of course it ain't easy standing next to MM at the height of her beauty.

Field was difficult to photograph. Even in her leading lady days, she could look quite plain depending on the shot.

Even when glammed up, she could look like a not much better looking version of someone like Nancy Walker.

I wonder what project this was. Did the gay hair and make up people hate her?

So,e people just aren’t photogenic.

Field in 1962.

Hey! Betty Field played Flo Owens in "Picnic".

Betty Field was a character actress, it didn't matter what she looked like, dolts.

On the same page as R286 and R287 regarding Mulligan, but I watch Far from the Madding Crowd for Matthias Schoenaerts who is perfect in this film (and who gets no love from DL)

I like the idea of a late '70s setting with Gatsby as a coke dealer. It would explain why Daisy ultimately rejects him when she finds out the truth about the origins of his fortune. Even in the '70s, society girls might fuck coke dealers, but they wouldn't marry them.

The 1949 version uses hilarious special effects (including animation) for Myrtle's death.

Sorry the quality is so bad.

R363 it was so Looney Tunes in its execution...

R361, I couldn't agree more about Schoenaerts.

What's interesting is that he's by far the most charismatic of the three male actors in the film, though it makes no sense that the character would seem so European. Even so, Alan Bates doesn't register as strongly in that role in the 1967 version.

Tom Sturridge, who plays the soldier, has no presence (and no chemistry with Mulligan). Compare him to the delicious (if too contemporary) Terence Stamp in the earlier film.

Peter Finch in the '67 film leaves the competent Michael Sheen in the dust.

Back to Gatsby, Betty Field would have been better cast as Myrtle. She's a better actress than the whiny, caterwauling Ms. Winters.

[quote]I assume the mom was still coming out of sedation in the hospital when she named her.

Ginevra is a variation of Guinevere.

"The novel is such an overrated piece of crap. Yes, I read it. At Yale."

I also read it.

In junior high.

Get a load of Miss Ivy over here.

I bombed in fucking New Haven.

"The novel is such an overrated piece of crap. Yes, I read it. At Yale."

I also read it.

In Fifth grade.

Does this mean my college years for which I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars were for naught?

It's a great novel. it was #2 (behind only Ulysses) for Modern Library's famous list of the 100 Best Novels of the twentieth century, it was on TIME Magazine's (unranked) list of the 100 Best novels of the 20th Century, and #46 on Le Monde's list of the 100 Best Novels of the 20th Century.

It's a fairly straightforwardly told short novel, so I'm not at all surprised to hear that some of you (like me) read it in high school or even earlier. but it's still regularly told at universities because a university student will get far more out of it. The same thing is true for #1 on the Le Monde list, Albert Camus's the Stranger.

Tell me, R369, what on Earth did a fifth grader make of "The Great Gatsby"?

I read the book for the first time when I was forty-five, at that age it just reinforced my belief in the foolishness of human beings.

I lied, R371. It was ninth grade. Hated it.