16 thoughts on “Which Gatsby Is Greater?

  1. This just convinces me more and more that I HAVE to watch the ’74 version. It’s been in my Netflix queue for over a year; I should just pull the trigger. But I dislike Fitzgerald. I did watch the Baz Luhrman version and while I usually love his films (surrealism FTW!), this just seemed like a rehash of every technique and motif he used in Moulin Rouge. The ’20s was flashy enough–he didn’t have to gussy it up even more. It just seemed tired. Not innovative at all. Not even ecstatic like Moulin Rouge’s party scenes–just manic.
    And I also don’t get the casting choices. I’m with you Trystan, I don’t buy Leo DiCaprio in ANY of his romantic-lead roles. I don’t mind him in bad-boy roles. The only not-so-bad bad-boy role I like him in is “Catch Me if You Can” where his little-boy face really helps sell it. But every time I see him I keep thinking “was What’s Eating Gilbert Grape really his best role ever??! I think it might have been.”
    You totally pegged what was bugging me about Carey Mulligan’s Daisy. A total nonentity. Vague. Listless, not just languid. It’s like she’s on a morphine drip. And Toby Maguire needs to pack it in; I haven’t seen anything from him worth the screen time.
    The costumes were very ‘meh’. Daisy’s dresses were pretty, but nothing looked period. I was very disappointed in Baz’s efforts on this one.

    1. I *loved* him in “Catch Me If You Can”! Yeah, that really suited DiCaprio. And “Gatsby” was a total rehash of all Lurhman’s tricks — I enjoyed “Moulin Rouge” & felt all the camera stuff worked there, but it was entirely unnecessary in “Gatsby.”

      Do watch the ’74 version, at the very least bec. it’s more historically accurate. And maybe it’ll help make the book more enjoyable :)

  2. Disclaimer: this is based on just looking at the pictures, because I haven’t seen either movie.

    I feel I don’t like the suits in either adaptation. It does sort of depend what year the movie is exactly set in. Early 20s suits were narrow in the leg and short in the pant length (almost no break at all) and the jackets had a slightly raised waist and buttoned pretty high. Legs got wider and jackets relaxed a bit later in the decade. If it’s 1925, that’s probably ticker because the transition between styles was probably happening then.

    But yeah the ’74 suits look cheesy and 70s to me and the 2013 are close to the early 20s, but still pretty modern looking.

    That said, now I want to watch them both and compare!

    1. Yeah, I don’t know a lot about the men’s suits except a bit about lapels & waistcoats :) It shows more in the sportswear, which I couldn’t find high-rez pictures of. In the ’74 version, Jay & Nick get more accurate casual clothes, but in the ’13 version, Tom gets more accurate sportswear (to really emphasize he’s a polo player, I guess).

  3. I agree with Lindsey, especially on the men’s suits and when I see the 1970s photos, I can totally tell you that movie was made in the 70s, even if you hadn’t told me that. Many of the hats read 1970s, some jewelry pieces, the colors, all say 1970s to me, apart from the tacky 1970s suits. In my opinion, neither one even comes close. I’ve seen neither movie, but I think the pictures give it an accurate feel. I do have to say, OH YUCK for the 2013 Myrtle version. That was just plain bad.

    1. I was just about to post – but Jenn beat me to it. Those wide brim hats are OH so 70’s! In fact… check any early-mid 70s spring/summer weddings and you’ll see the exact same hats. The real ones in the 20s would have been braided horsehair – but you can see that shine of nylon on these.
      Ahhhhh well.

  4. I did a long ass FB post on the new movie when it came out because of the abortion I feel that it is! If there is one thing I hate its taking a period set movie and giving everyone a misconception that it is period accurate. Which the 2013 movie did!. If you wanted it modern set it in modern times! I love the 70’s version because I have the feeling and you can tell that most of the extras had on real 20’s in the party scenes or at least the women did! Yes the ties and mens suits say 70’s. Yes the widebrims are definitely nylon an some say 70’s more than other but it still looks a hell of lot better than what we see in other movies. Yes some of Mia Farrows looks are not period but that was due to them having to hide her pregnancy during the filming. Jordan’s looks and Mytrles are spot on with there characters all be it 70’s fabics and colors. AND YOU CANT BEAT SAM WATERS AS NICK. He was meant for it. The settings were PERFECT aside from 70’s color shcemes in the décor and the cars being 30’s. With that being said. I HATED PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING ABOUT THE . When I saw that the house’s were CGI I said well I’m done. Gatsbys house is way too gothic wrong wrong wrong. Nicks cottage passable. Tom’s city apartment I could deal with if it weren’t for the ‘shenanigan’s that went on in the rest of that scene. To the actor’s I can deal with Leo being Gatsby, I actually felt that he did it well he was just a smidge to old to be playing him, you can tell where they had to photo shop him to look younger. Joel Edgerton as Tom was spot on even overdone. Don’t get me started on Toby. When it comes to the clothes this movie basically created the silhouette that most off the rack mens wear has followed since it came out (thanks brooks bros not!) to answer the question all the mens wear was off the rack or custom made (either way still not very good) by brooks brothers. When It come’s to the actress’s only Isla Fisher even came close to embodying the character. I couldn’t get past Carey Mulligan’s HAIR to even rate her acting she is not modern so why the hell is she in a super modern bob? short waves would have been much better. With that being said you got it right with that one look coming close to period everything else HORRIBLE, the only thing accurate was her tiffany jewelry that they recreated and is now available in a variety of bad knock offs. I wont go in on Jordan except for that WTF 2013 prada dress get the hell outta here with that! I did notice that some of the show girl costumes from the party had a little Josephine baker vibe but not executed right. The extras all looked horrible ! PERIOD. This movie gave the term Gatsby a bad name. And people use this movie as a costume resource for 20’s parties still 2 years later. AGAIN NO NO NO. This movie should have been aborted and never been allowed to carry to full term.

    1. cant disagree. the ’74 movie has an atmosphere and subtle emotion. I don’t know why they bothered with the 2013 movie.

  5. Whoever said that the men’s suits in the 1974 version is a little too modern, I agree.

    What I love most about this movie is that it’s extremely faithful to the book in both style and story.

    I disagree. The 1974 version is not completely faithful. I have yet to see a completely faithful version of “THE GREAT GATSBY” and I have seen three versions – the two mentioned in this article and the 2000 television version.

    My favorite version is the 2013 adaptation. It was the only version that allowed me to understand Fitzgerald’s tale without me falling asleep.

  6. The 2013 version seems to be little more than an MTV music video complete. Tries way too hard. The 1974 is not perfect but it’s a lot better even though Mia Farrow can’t act to save her life.

  7. 1974! The new version, however, got my son into Gatsby, so I can’t complain. But, I did have to tell him, Robert Redford will always be Gatsby to me.

  8. I usually haven’t liked DiCaprio until he got older & out grew his baby faced looks. The Great Gatsby is one hell of a depressing story, even tho I’m a sucker for depressing period pieces a la Anna Karenina, Wuthering Heights, etc.

    I didn’t hate the 2013 version, I just was kinda eh about it. Knew what I was going into with it as a Baz Lurhman film, & that didn’t bother me. It’s just not a story that I particularly find enthralling or passionate…LOL, & yes: I had to read it back in high school. Think we had to watch the ’74 version as well in school. I love me some vintage Robert Redford(hello, Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid??!!) but was underwhelmed with the ’74 version. It moved a little too slow.

    So, just judging by these 2, I’d go with the 2013 version due to the extreme hotness of Joel Edgerton & its ability to at least make a dull story interesting.

    Lol, for those of y’all who love Fitzgerald, I’ll never understand it…but, I’m more of a Bronte & Tolstoy fan. To each her own :)

  9. While I have loved DiCaprio in many of his rolls… I don’t think this was a good one for him. There was MAGIC between Daisy and Gatsby in 1974… Redford embodied Gatsby. With the exception of Tobey McGuire… I felt the cast fell flat in 2013 version. (Sam Waterston was also excellent in the roll as well.) Gatsby was made to be cheap and borderline insane with his outburst of anger… made us all feel that Daisy should run from him… not at all what Fitzgerald wanted us to feel. I think Baz Luhrmann changed the story line… and not for the better.

  10. I felt the only authentic-feeling performance Redford gave as Gatsby was a strikingly unflinching depiction of constipation each time he said “old sport”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: