Books2Movies Club discussion

The Great Gatsby is a novel by American author F. Scott Fitzgerald. The book takes place from spring to autumn 1922, during a prosperous time in the United States known as the Roaring Twenties. Although it did not receive widespread attention until after Fitzgerald's death in 1940, today the book is widely regarded as a "Great American Novel" and a literary classic. The Modern Library named it the second best English-language novel of the 20th Century (the first being Ulysses).
When Fitzgerald died in 1940, he had been largely forgotten. His obituary in The New York Times mentioned Gatsby as evidence of great potential that was never reached. (Wikipedia)

There are four major film adaptations of The Great Gatsby, and the fifth is currently under post-production, directed by Moulin Rouge director, Baz Luhrmann.

..

The oldest adaptation, silent film made barely an year after the first publication of the novella, The Great Gatsby (1926) is considered lost, the testament of its existence survived only by one minute long trailer. Twenty years later, The Great Gatsby (1949) was made, based on the novella and Owen Davis' play, starring Alan Ladd, Betty Field and Macdonald Carey.

.

The most famous adaptation, The Great Gatsby (1974), was written by Francis Ford Coppola, and includes some of the greatest actors of those days, Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Bruce Dern and Sam Waterston. The first adaptation made in the first days of this century, The Great Gatsby (2000) is TV adaptation produced in collaboration of BBC, Granada and A&E, and starring respectable actors and actresses - Mira Sorvino, Toby Stephens and Paul Rudd. For those curious, there is one adaptation also based on this novella, but set within the modern day African American society, G (2000), with Blair Underwood, Richard T. Jones and Chenoa Maxwell in the main roles.

..

All these adaptations with the book itself sound very promising for first-time readers. As usual, here you may post your thoughts, expectations and disappointments, in short any opinions you have about the book and the films you've seen or hope to see :)

Just finished this and fairly disappointed.I personally fail to see what gives this book such high ratings. Interested in hearing from those who really enjoyed this one.

Just finished The Great Gatsby read by Anthony Heald. Good narrator. Book was ok. Descriptions were flowy/decadent but characters were frustrating. Kept to what is perceived as real-life and could be representing life today. Wanted to rush through the book. I may be too impatient for some classics. Gave 2 stars.

I found Fitzgerald's novel personified the glitter and underlying corruption of the Jazz Age. Through his portrayal of the incorrigible and somewhat naive Gatsby, the self-made man, the reader begins to understand some of the mindset of the time; the pursual of the American Dream and the corruption that was necessarily involved. Personally I found it a great book, with a range of characters and wonderful symbolism and meaning.
The prose is superb, the wording economical and thus evocative. In Gatsby as a character, his emptiness is almost palpable and his tragic story is haunting.

I picked this one up to reread today, hoping it will be better than I remember from reading it in high school. So far, I don't hold onto high hopes. We'll see if it gets better.

I personally have a hard time reading classics that use a lot of descriptions and big words that can distract from the actual story. This is why I had decided to listen to this book as an audio book in the car and am very glad that I did. I enjoyed the story and the slow building of the characters, the mystery of Gatsby's back story kept me interested to the very end. It's not a "glamorous" story with a "happily ever after", but that's one of the best things about this book; it addresses real life and the constant unbalance between personal morals and social expectations.

I have not yet seen any of the older versions of the movies made, but am looking forward to the new movie coming out in 2013.

About finished with it. I did like it better this time around, although it's still not one I particularly enjoyed. I did find it interesting that Gatsby, who has hundreds of guests to his lavish parties (thrown for the one woman he can't have, of course) has no true friends to mourn him in the end. And Carraway is such an interesting narrator, because he's constantly reminding us what a trustworthy, honest fellow he is, yet his actions (or inactions) throughout the story completely contradict this claim and make him one of the most unreliable narrators ever created.

Gatsby's infatuation with Daisy actually reminded me of Shakepeare's Othello, in his having to kill Ophelia to keep her from falling short of the idealized version of her he had created in his mind. His barely recognizing she has a child and refusing to believe she ever loved her husband is very telling. He lives in a dreamworld and in the end is destroyed because of it.

I read the book two years ago as part of a literature course. I fell in love with the prose and the message of the book. The narrator is one of the finest examples of that type of narration in my view.

I've seen the 'most famous version' of this film. I don't think it quite does the book justice though it, like many film adaptations, is a good movie. I doubt Luhrmann's film will have the subtlety the book possesses too, since he's such a bombastic director and seeing the ads already. I do think the casting was a good choice though with Toby Maguire as Nick and Leonardo Dicaprio as Gatsby. Not sure about the accents though that I've seen...

I think what doesn't work in the films is that the book is a first person narration. So you miss a lot of that in a film adaptation. However, The Hunger Games is first person and the film was good. So I guess it depends...

I've just read the book, and as you said, Jonathan, I think any movie would not do it justice, as most of the things we find about the characters are through the inner reminiscences of the narrator. I'll try to see some of those adaptations before Luhrmann's.

But about the book itself first. Fitzgerald is really good in details, I could really feel myself transported to that time, mingling in that crowd -- but I couldn't really connect with any of them. They all seemed to me shallow and of dubious (if any) character, excluding Nick Carraway himself. And those horrid fragmentary dialogues! At times I really hadn't a clue what they were talking about. I couldn't sometimes follow Nick's notes too, some situations seemed quite nonsensical. But, I am not really familiar with that time in the American history, so it's probably my fault. In any case it was hard for me to pity anyone in this story. But again, I still believe in ideals, so I might not be right one to have my say in this.

I think it's interesting that Tom rails against Gatsby's supposed bootlegging, while it's during the '20s and all alcohol is supposed to be illegal, so Tom's constant drunkenness is supporting this supposedly awful thing Gatsby is doing. But that's just one of the many contradictions and double standards in Tom.

Yes, Tom was perfect character to completely despise. For him I felt no remorse at all, actually I was a bit angry because, as everything else in this story, I doubt any kind of justice would get to him...(view spoiler)[ It's no consolation the fact Daisy won't ever really love him, (never mind she is also weak character I couldn't get myself to like), because he anyway thinks of her as a part of his furniture. (hide spoiler)]

I haven't quite finished the book yet, but mostly, I agree with Zeljka's take on both the writing and the characters. The writing seemed to transport me back to the twenties. It gave more than just an image of the times, but a feeling of being there. If the characters seemed shallow and vapid at times, that was the way of the times and of the social class. People of standing felt they had to show that they had now serious concerns in the world, they were above stress and worry. They had to prove that they were people of leisure, which had the effect of making them look shallow, yet they played it off as those around them were just beneath their ways.

I love 'the Great Gatsby' but it is true is a book of a time and probably familiarity with the period helps appreciate the story. People were just out of First World War and wanted to enjoy life and not think about the destruction and deaths (it was not the Great War for nothing, it was a carnage) and that restlessness and spending and madness of the time is reflection of that attempt to catch up with lost time...Of course the Great Depression would put an end to all of it, but Fitzgerald is superb at capturing the time and society, and the contradictions.
It's true that no characters are flawless or sympathetic and Alana is on the money when she points out that Nick's insistence in how honourable and decent he is, is quite suspect. He is one of those 'unreliable narrators' writers used to like so much (and still do). We don't know the facts, only his version of them, tinted but his own opinions and prejudices...
Not sure what the new film version will be like...

I guess for me I don't really care for the book because it's NOT representative of the times...not really. Ok, maybe for those few lucky enough to be filthy rich, and it might have been the goal for those who were beginning to thrive (it was certainly called the Roaring Twenties for a reason), but most people didn't live like that. It kind of makes me think of the whole celebrity craze with people like the Kardashians these days. They are famous solely because they have money, and people THINK they want to emulate them, but really they are just broken people who have enough money to show off all of their family issues on international television. It's pathetic, really. The majority of the population doesn't even care about them, because it has nothing to do with how the average person lives.

I really like that comment of yours of Nick being an unreliable narrator - haven't really thought about him till now! That's probably what irritated me the most, how Nick so casually wrote about the wrongdoings of his new friends. In conversations (mostly nonsensical) with them, it seemed like he despised them all, but they were too absorbed (or drunk) with themselves to notice his venom. I guess - because he knew he wasn't part of that clique, he didn't have that money nor freedom to loiter around - that's why he sympathised with Gatsby so much, because he wasn't part of that group too. They went to his parties because they knew of nothing better to do, but they never accepted him.

Right as you said, Gatsby was a dreamer, but what a deranged dreamer. The only thing that mattered to him was a false image he created of himself and of the woman he loved. Never mind the way he procured his wealth (was he really rich? I never figured that out), never mind the child and the family the love of his life had now...

Hm. I might not like the characters of this story, but I like the way it makes me think :)

Agreed: I don't think there's a single likable character in the whole thing, but boy, are they wonderfully flawed!

Zeljka wrote: "I really like that comment of yours of Nick being an unreliable narrator - haven't really thought about him till now! That's probably what irritated me the most, how Nick so casually wrote about th..."

Most people think of him as the prime example of the reliable narrator actually. But then 'reliable' in literary terms tends to mean he's not hiding something or possessing a mental defect/is insane. I'd agree in many ways he is still very unreliable and almost real. I can't help but wonder whether the author was putting his views of the roaring 20s (I believe he was a 'high liver' from what I know) into the descriptions because they are wonderful.

Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda were indeed in the "in" crowd and much has been written about it. They also then went to Europe that was the thing to do...
Any narrator is going to bring their own view and personality to a story. I guess that's the beauty of it. Some are more insightful than others, some possibly more objective than others, but they become de facto in-text authors of the book...But also read and interpret the situation and actions they narrate for us, becoming in the process both author and reader...Sorry. I'm digressing badly...

I think he's considered unreliable because he's a constant contradiction and does not recognize this about himself. Anytime someone says that they are "the most honest person" they know, watch out! He condemns all these behaviors but does nothing to stop them, even encourages them in some cases. He tries to look like the innocent bystander, but he's involved in every scene he describes and COULD have stepped up and said something, but he takes either a journalistic "don't get involved" attitude or he's just afraid of rocking the boat. How does that phrase go, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"?

Alana wrote: "I think he's considered unreliable because he's a constant contradiction and does not recognize this about himself. Anytime someone says that they are "the most honest person" they know, watch out!..."

I don't think that's necessarily unreliable narration however. Unreliable narration tends to exist when people do step in based on their prejudices. That's why most people tend to see him as a prime reliable narrator. He's not unhinged by insanity or another medical condition. He's not an active participant in the things he observes. He stands back and watches it all. Of course as you say it does mean that we get his version of events and he doesn't change things he could have. But it is still a literary type of reliable narration.

This weekend I saw the TV adaptation from 2000 (Sorvino, Stephens, Rudd). The movie itself was ok and true to the novel, except for us finding out that Gatsby (view spoiler)[ gets killed at the end - at the very beginning of the movie (hide spoiler)].

But I really fail to see what the big deal is with this novel! While relatively short, it is boring to read and seems pointless. I did not like the plot at all, nor did I particularly like the characters. I don't understand why it is considered such a masterpiece?!

The characters are all extremely shallow (even the narrator, who seems to put himself above it all, does nothing vastly different from the others!) and I could not make myself like anyone. The only bearable one was maybe Gatsby, because I felt bad for him, his hopeless love for Daisy, and his loneliness despite tons of people passing through his home daily! People seemed to use him just to have fun, (view spoiler)[ but once he was dead, no one cared enough to actually come to his funeral - not even Daisy! (hide spoiler)]. Daisy seemed to be weak, selfish and self centered, and in the end just wanted to save herself and let Gatsby pay for what she had done, never coming forward with the truth...

Generally, all the characters are "filthy rich" and just bored with their empty lives, having all they could ever want without having to work for anything. I find that the book paints an untrue picture - making it seem like this was the life of the majority of Americans in the '20s, when it was definitely just a select few that could live like this and afford this kind of life style!

Best movie adaptation is with Robert Redford

I've seen two Great Gatsby adaptations, that one with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, and new one, with Toby Stephens and Mira Sorvino.

That 1974 version was WOW AMAZING film -- perfect adaptation, that makes understanding and appreciation of the whole story much much better. The casting was perfect, all the characters were nailed to the last detail. With one exception though -- Daisy was utterly annoying as in the book, however I felt her fragile but bleak beauty and shrill voice lacks that enchanting spark needed for us to understand why would Gatsby STILL be infatuated with her after their reunion.

In that matter I think Mira Sorvino succeded, but that 2000 version is totally devoid of glamour the first one oozes with. Characters weren't also quite true to the original story, and Gatsby carried some odd, smug smile whole time, that was really weird. In short, it wasn't really good movie, even considered regardless of the story. I must be honest, it was rather boring and amateurish... While Robert Redford's version was truly great. I dislike all the characters, true, but story was told really really well, right as in the book.

The Great Gatsby, audiobook narrated by Anthony Heald is currently being offered for free by Blackstone Audio and Downpour.com, so if you like audiobooks and haven't read this one, you may wish to check this offer...

Currently reading The True, Behind-The-Scenes Account of Filming The Great Gatsby by Bruce Bahrenburg, found in the second-hand bookstore this Christmastime. I never thought the story (and the 1974 film) I read (and saw) two years ago, would still be in my mind that much that I'll be tempted to buy this little book! The narrative is quite interesting, analyzing the story and the filming of it. If you are interested in that, I recommend it.

There's a great article on the newest adaptation:

Julia Rittenberg: Troubles in adaptation: The 2013 Adaptation of The Great Gatsby

My two cents: I liked that adaptation, but the 1974 adaptation is still my favorite. This 2013 adaptation was spectacular, and every actor was good, but I disliked the ending. They should've had left the ending ambiguous, not so neatly explained.