Watching the Great Gatsby movie made me think that Nick loved Gatsby in an unrequited love of sorts. Like damn bro, he was telling Gatsby’s story like a widowed wife would. He wants Gatsby’s life to be viewed as Gatsby being the big victim and everyone was mean to him.
To be honest, I really wish the film adaptions would look more into Nick's loneliness and why the "I'm 30." in hit hard. Back in those times, it was expected for couples to marry and have kids young. And with Nick being a WWI vet, he must've already felt so lost and out of place like any other vet (just look at "All Quiet On The Western Front"). Mixed that was him having troubled romances from that girl back at West, the secretary with her over-protective brother and Jordan, then you see Nick's struggle in solitude. That's probably why he clung on to Daisy, and why he didn't socked Tom when introducing him to his mistress or why he didn't knock any sense into Gatsby after Myrtle's death. Especially the latter as Nick saw a brother in Gatsby due to being in The War. Nick's loneliness made him desperate. For goodness's sake, there was even a chapter of Nick wanting to follow some girl home at one point.
Yes! I remember Nick's narration of his thoughts when he would find his way to Midtown Manhattan and his description of the silhouettes of people in the taxis and then their laughter. I think he expected the world to be fair and it just wasn't so he became judgmental. I always wanted Nick to say, "You do realize your wife was driving" when he ran into Tom in NYC after Gatsby's murder but he chose not to, knowing that it wouldn't make any difference anyway. People like Tom and Daisy used people like the Wilsons, Gatsby, and even Nick.
@@Thomas116-m2n Does make me wonder what would've happened had Tom found out the truth. Would he kill Daisy, file for divorce (and take Pammy), or would he and Daisy "Eh, our lovers are dead. We're even, honey."?
Dude. When you mentioned the quote "her voice is full of money" I got so excited, because I was also pissed that didn't make the movie!! I thought I was the only one! Anyways, this is a truly thoughtful piece of movie/literary criticism. I really enjoyed this!
I think when Gatsby saw Daisy's daughter, Pamela, he was reminded of Tom.....that Tom exists and the child exists and that Daisy and Tom would always be tied due to that child, even if Daisy left Tom for Gatsby.
Or because in his mind Daisy was still the young débutante he knew from 5 years prior. He even imagined that once she leaves Tom, they will go back to her parents' house and they will marry there. As if the past few years never happened. The existence of Daisy's child, which he never even fully believed in until that moment, is a stark reminder that time did pass.
I find it funny that Baz Luhrman removed certain things from the novel in order not to make Daisy look bad. Daisy is not supposed to be sympathetic. She has her vulnerable moments, but by the end of story she shows her true colours. Daisy was based on a real-life woman whom Fitzgerald used to be in love with, but as he himself wrote, rich girls don't marry poor boys. After the book came out she met Fitzgerald again and asked him if she was the inspiration for any of the characters. To which he supposedly said "Couldn't you tell which bitch you were?". Daisy is only sympathetic when presented through Jay's pink tinted glasses or by Jordan Baker. Edit: The Wikepedia article says that the conversation between Ginevra King and Fitzgerald was about "The Beautiful and Damned" and not "The Great Gatsby". However the article also says that the character of Gloria was inspired by Zelda, while Daisy was inspired by Ginevra. Whichever book the conversation was about, Nick Carraway describes Daisy and Tom as careless people, who broke lives and then retreated into their arrogance. So, I still believe that Daisy in the end is not supposed to be viewed as a sympathetic character.
I agree, there's moments where you see why Daisy is the way she is. Along with some commentary surrounding the role of women in those days. She is more intelligent than presented, but at the end of the day, she is as selfish and arrogant as Tom
Yes, on the 2000's Paul Rudd (Nick) version, he told exactly how selfish Daisy (Mira Sorvino) and Tom was at the end of the movie before Gatsby (Toby Stevens) got shot. I enjoy the Paul Rudd's version, but the remake by Leonardo D'Caprio and Tobey McGuire was also enjoyable to watch.
It's a bad adaptation, and yet still one of the best adaptations of this story on film... I don't know if this is more of a commentary on the book itself or on society as a whole. But it's something.
@@shelbyherring92 this comment is very interesting. This is my second time reading it, I finally understood it……… and (despite never seeing the movie) this is a very interesting take. I dont know if I agree, but the truth in this is undeniably
It can be a bad adaptation and STILL a great movie. I think TGG is a good movie, and a decent adaptation. I think the feelings and subtlety of the message in the movie captures the feeling of the book BUT could have definetely gone further to show the desperation and pointlessness of it all. The movie goes for 'poetic' but the book goes for 'reality'... i feel.
I think it's the best adaptation, better than the old version. If you watch the 2013 movie and don't think the characters presented are bad people, that's on you.
I was a junior in high school when this movie was released. I think for me, at 16/17, I saw both the book and the movie as romantic, mainly because of the time period. 11 years later, I can see the story of The Great Gatsby is not a romance, its an anti romance- despite all of the adultry and daisy- and gatsby's affair and the romantic gestures present, its basically all anti romance.
@@AmandaabnamAeveryone has varying perspectives. Why not share yours to broaden this person’s perspective and facilitating a productive conversation instead of being condescending.
Hey, Gatsby is now in the public domain so anyone can adapt it. And I might as well mention two cases where the film version far exceeds the source material: The Zone of Interest is an OK book but 2023’s film outdoes it on every front. And, ahem, Adaptation (2002) highlights how being unfaithful to the text can actually improve it.
"Reserving judgement is a matter of infinite hope" a beautifully warm line Fitzgerald turns to tragedy as we see Nick gain hope upon meeting Gatsby who is the ipitome of 'hope'. A poor man who survived WW1 with no majpr injuries and aqcuired a great amount of wealth. A man who hopes for impossible things like true love, and who sees the best in people. A man who never judges, always strives. By all means, what the 20s believed was an ideal American. Yet all that hope leads to Gatsby's demise. He could not see that his wealth was not bringing him happiness, that Daisy was not a perfect person, that romance is not a fairytale escape, that people are terribly cruel. In that final moment when Daisy ran over that moment he had a chance to see her. The real her. The woman desperatly clinging ro a fantasy to bring her some joy in her shallow life. Bt he chose to hope instead. The only one who was hurt was not the couple born to wealth and prestige, who had never 'suffered' or toiled but whose loneliness came from their inability to lose their empty status. Not the man who cheated on his wife, who lied to an innocent woman promising her an escape from pocerty because he liked playing hero, not the man who never fought in the war but played polo. The only ones who suffer are those not born into privilage, and those who suffer the most are those whp dare to dream and hope like Gatsby and Myrtle. Hopeful, desperate things chewed up and spit out by those in power as little playthings.
Imagine if every year they came out with a new artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa. I think the only valid complaint against re-creating art is that the audience should be interested in the original more so than the adaptation. Sadly, most people today care more about the newer version and never care to explore the originals.
@@zyxw2000 I find that people who read the book get a completely different meaning than those who only watch the movie. The book to me, likens being in the elite upper class to being an actor on stage. It's all a giant show, which is ultimately unattainable for the majority of people. People who watch the movie glorify being in the elite upper class, thinking how much they'd like to live a life like them. Not ever picking up the message that the whole thing is for show, and the people behind closed doors are horrible people, who usually become so wealthy from doing horrible things. People who watch the movie think "how do I become a bad person, so I can mingle with that type in society?" I mean maybe its just the women I date, but a few who only watched the movie like Daisy... which is weird to me if they ever read the book.
I don’t feel you are getting Gatsby right here - last thing Fitzgerald wanted was to portray him as a bad person. He was deeply pitiful to everybody lured by the sparkles of wealth and conflicted when actually facing them, those are most of his characters in both novels and short stories - the downfall of Dick Diver is another good example. The same can be said about the passiveness of Nick - he was born moderately wealthy and unlike Gatsby is not able to make his living once his privilege does not pay off, another common trait of Fitzgerald’s characters, especially the main characters of his two stories. Yes, Gatsby was lured by wealth - but this is not necessarily because he was shallow or materialistic, just look at what average person’s lifestyle was back than (and still is compared to the super rich). Once you see this it cannot be unseen, I am saying this as somebody coming from lower upper class who has faced a good portion of billionaires in his life. The issue why Nick struggles with Daisy’s voice is because he is so used to it - and to Gatsby she just talks like nobody in his previous life, in a way that only wealthy people would sound. The story was always first about class and money, and much less so about love.
...and about Gatsby's naivete, thinking the American Dream can still be attained. This was written just after WWI, when the world had become more cynical.
Ok hold on you missed the point of the "incarnation" line. It's not the kiss that's an incarnation, it's that his love for Daisy drags him fully out of his earlier dreams into full humanity by being focused on her. The kiss isn't the incarnation; his being grounded in reality is.
I am so confused how Gatsby is evil??? Gatsby is the only likable character in the whole book? Everyone else is evil, except for mb the mechanic. The whole book is about elitism and Gatspy’s inability to change the past and where he come from,
This is my perspective (which is what I love about literature, it's up for interpretation), but I believe that it shows that not everything is black and white, Gatsby is not purely innocent, but also not entirely horrible. His relectance to move on from Daisy, which I felt most of his attraction was due to her wealth, showed somewhat of a moral lesson? To me it showed that you should not change for someone or something else other than who you want yourself to be. So I don't see Gatbsy as evil, more so flawed. Again, just my interpretation from someone who hasn't read the book in months, but I would love to hear yours as well, the more the merrier!
@@Theabrishmalik I pretty much agree with what you said yes. Not evils was a very strong word, no one is blameless, Gatsby was overly obsessed. But I feel like the fact both men who die are the one most “moral.” again for lack of a better word. (But I don’t t remember Gatsby wanting Daisy for her money, he got money for her to impress her I thought?)
@@aarbear83fierce if he wanted her for money is still up to interpretation, but what I (and my English class) thought of was the line “her voice is full of money” as more so he never loved Daisy, he loved what she represented (money and the American dream)
Gatsby isn’t evil, but he’s not exactly likeable either. His whole character is based on the fact that he wants Daisy because “her voice is full of money”. He wants the status she represents, not the love he may or may not feel for her. Also it’s heavily implied that Gatsby got his wealth by being a bootlegger and a gangster. Also as the video said, Gatsby abandoned his family to try and chase the ‘American dream’. I agree out of all the main characters he is the least hatable but he’s not the good guy the movie shows him as
After this movie I saw a lot of posts saying "I want to be the Daisy to your Gatsby" which I brought to my English teacher and we had a great laugh about it "I would never want to be somebody's Daisy" she said
If you think about it being a bad adaptation doesn't mean being a bad movie, for example the Shining is a horrible book adaptation but is better than the book itself
I loved the move despite it's flaws. It got me to read thw book (my classes didn't read the book I was in college in 2013 and read because became obsessed with the movie)
I wonder what you thought about the Redford version? Is there a video? The Redford version was the one I saw after we had to read the book in school. The only problem I will have when I eventually see this version is the fact that putting Jay-Z music into a film about the Roaring 20s might give me a headache--no matter how visionary. This is not like using Elton John for Moulin Rouge. This is literally putting Jay-Z in a time when we should be listening to jazz. Disclosure: I'm still upset about his desecration of "It's a hard knock life" as I am the world's weirdest theater kid. That would be like inviting Eminem (whom I like, by the way) to do the soundtrack for Of Mice & Men. Not saying it's not possible I'm just saying it would be weird. I do like the vivid images I've seen so far of the Jazz Age but, they seem a little bit more like what the 21st century thinks the Jazz Age was rather than a critique of the Jazz Age culture.
I feel like the Redford version does a better job depicting the actual literal sequence of events of the book. But it lacks a lot of flair and personality, both stylistically and in performances. Because of this, I actually prefer the Dicaprio version just purely because of entertainment value - even though I find a lot of its decision blasphemous. Both films are quite bloated, but the Dicaprio one is bloated in an "overly ambitious auteur" way, while the Redford one is bloated in a boring costume drama way. They're still the best we got though, because the 1949 one and the straight-to-TV 2000 one are worse.
Still hoping there will be an adaptation with the infamous McKee/Elevator scene. The movie hinted at McKee being queer, but I doubt we’d be ready for that interpretation of Nick.
The Great Gatspy Should have been a GREAT TV show! And make it stay true to the source material! By Copying and Pasting everything from the Source Material and do it justice with care and passion and patience!!!
I really think Nick being an unreliable or at least biased narrator is very important to the whole story! Hell my favorite example is that in the first chapter he hooks up with a man and hand waves it off so fast most people miss it.
My own interpretation of the child and gatsby’s reactions towards him is that the child shows Gatsby the reality he doesn’t want to accept: that time has moved on since before the war, and that he can’t rewrite the past. Gatsby’s outburst of “of course we can” when Nick was talking about the inability to change the past kinda shows this imo, which links to why he tries to make daisy leave Tom, as the marriage is another reality check for him.
I love the book and I love the 2013 film. I think it's a great adaptation. My only criticism is the film left out the Nick/ Jordan dating subplot and relegated Jay's father's arrival to a deleted scene. Apart from these, the adaptation was superb.
Yes, I have. Due to it being a TV special its quite an abridged version of the story, with some half-hearted performances - so I'm not the biggest fan, I prefer the 2013 film, but it has a charm to it.
I think your analysis of the book is really interesting, and I do agree with the 2013 movie not being fully faithful to the novel; however, I do feel like you missed some key concepts of the book. I will start off by stating how Gatsby is NOTHING short of a morally questionable person. He is not perfect and I'm not trying to write off all his actions. The key concept about this novel is how Gatsby is supposed to be a paragon of hope, and how that is the only redeemable thing about him compared to the other characters (as said so by Nick). Gatsby's failure is not because of him, but because of the "foul dust," which is a symbol for the cynicism and carelessness of the old money mentality. I would also argue that Daisy is the antagonist. Fitzgerald details her voice so mellifluously because it's an allusion/metaphor for a siren. The main reason why Gatsby believes he can have Daisy is because she leads him on, like a sailor being led to his doom. If anything, Gatsby is the least shallow character in the novel because although he portrays this flippant attitude, it's just a front in attempts to get with Daisy. Fitzgerald isn't trying to argue that he is naive, but rather that the American Dream is extremely alluring and manipulative.
I had to read that book in high school, and I wasn't a fan. It was required cause the author wrote parts of it in my hometown cause he had a summer home in the area when he was writing it. And I know Tom is meant to be an unlikeable character at the time it was written(mostly cause of the adultery), but now a days the teacher always talk big about him being a racist(very few people in the 20s weren't) and his racist rants are kept to one conversation i can remember off the top of my head. But I was with Nike in how I thought Gatsby was a fool for chasing a girl that is for one married and a girl from years ago when he could find somebody new that is way more likely to love him over chasing a woman he had a fling with when he was a broke soldier. I never understood how people could find gatsby's and Daisy's relationship romantic. i found it creepy and foolish. Idk if the rest of the class felt that way, but thankfully, the book was short cause it is not one of my favorites
This seems to have that typical hollywood problem of selling the coolness of a character too much for the audience to truly give up on a villian. Tyler Durden, Bateman, etc. Yes I am calling Gatsby a villian here, that's my interpretation.
Love the book and the Movie. 🍿 Even if it doesn’t meet the criteria you established at the beginning of the video. Fitzgerald and Lurman are genuinely genuine
I find it very interesting how I needed to watch the film two times to understand how truly deranged Gatsby was. It's hard to see, but it's clear that Gatsby is just insane. At least it was for me in the second time. Great video though!
I’d say the movie touches on most of the biggest plot points but it’s missing the complexities and value the book has. They do say the book IS better than the movies
It's a wink from diddy. Think about it. DIDDY PARTIES. Gatzby=diddy. Gatsby parties. Leo Dicaprio real life friend of diddy. Jay z does music. Wild sex parties, cover ups, fashion, elegance, history of violence, rock star persona, gangster car rides. This film is diddy. If you view it backwards. It's hiding in plain sight. Daisy and husband could represent Jay z and Beyonce. Dude gets framed and question by cops. Like incidents from diddy life. THE GREAT DIDDY.
Inevitably someone who's job is to construct this world would sympathize with Gatsby's delusion. I keep thinking of movie directors as being as annoying as Dawson from Dawson's Creek. Not that this director is like that but that kind of self absorbed character came to mind. I wonder how the musical adaptation will be
I have to whole-heartedly disagree, The movie does a great job of showing the 1920s sin and excess, if you can watch the 2013 movie and think any of those characters are good people, then that's a failing on your part. If you need the movie to scream at you that shouldn't idolize wealth and decadence, then you're not using your own mental faculty to analyze the movie. You're expecting it to spoonfeed you on how you should feel.
Look I'm sorry, but my class absolutely hated the great gatsby (theres a meriate of reasons but mainly) we found it boring, so when we watched the flashy movie with over the top scenes, we absolutely loved it, but to each their own I definitely respect this book more then I like it
@@blooberryjamyt5688 We hadn't experienced much life yet. We read a lot of novels in high school and college that went over our heads. I went back to some of them many years later.
@zyxw2000 Nah, I understood it just fine, I just didn't like it and found it boring. And like, I loved a lot of those English class books that we were forced to read like Night, Animal Farm, The Cask of Amontillado, The Lottery, and even Ths Tragedy of Macbeth. I loved ALL of these. And even then, I think they all give less Narative interest than The Great Gatsby (okay, maybe not Animal Farm that one is pretty good Narativley), but I still find the book horrendously boring. Some books forget that spending an entire page describing an object or something isn't very fun to read. I can appreciate the book for what it does and the interesting perspective, but I do not like it.
You were probably too young to understand its nuances. We read a lot of stuff in high school and college that we weren't really ready for. I read it every few years.
@@alexiavya722 I haven't seen the movies, but I know it's one of the most complex novels in the canon. That's why it's called "The Great American Novel" and why they keep trying to make films of it. It's also 100 years old, and you have to view it from a 1925 perspective, knowing the historical background after the war. I'm defending the novel, haven't seen any of the movie versions.
I think the accusation of anti-Semitism is somewhat exaggerated. The Wolfsheim character was modeled by Fitzgerald after Arnold Rothstein, who was the most famous high-society gangster in New York in the 1920s and just happened to be Jewish. He also only has one real scene in the book and is more to give the reader an idea of how Gatsby made his money. Wolfsheim, like Rothstein, is a gangster, but the book doesn't even paint him as particularly unsympathetic. More unsympathetic is the character of Tom, who holds racial views and, like the Nazis, tries to justify them pseudo-scientifically.
I just read the book for the first time a month ago after seeing every adaptation that's been made and I can safely say the story is told so much better on screen by different artists, Baz being by far the best. The book was just kind of bland and outdated to think the book is better than this movie.
The 2002's Paul Rudd and Mira Sorvino version is also remarkable. But the Tobey-Leo version is the real bromance and adress different experience when watch it. Fitzgerald was incredible to create timeless characters such is
Both the book and the film are kind of forgetful personally. To a large degree, I don't care for it because it just seemed like rich assholes having 1st world problems while the rest of the world suffers off screen. It is a soap opera. The people are so rich and detached from reality of the average poor man it is hard to imagine anyone sympathizing with them unless they themselves are also incredibly powerful and/or rich.The movies and the book are not necessarily bad per say, but I just don't get it myself. All the characters in the great Gatsby except maybe that one mechanic are rich as fuck and they are wallowing over bullshit interpersonal drama and cheating while there are people homeless, hungry, oppressed, and at war. And somehow these rich assholes' soap opera drama are at the center of this book, and instead of being ridiculoued and shine a spotlight on how hypocritical they are, it is always: "Woe is me, I am so rich and powerful and I can't believe my crush in highschool doesn't want me despite that." The book and the movie bascially never give any detail of the average joe's suffering during the gilded age to contrast the soap opera. There is barely any critique of the american dream except the self pity party Fitz Gerald throws himself.
I think this video is useless You are saying from the perspective of a book reader I don’t like reading books that much so who cares if the movie is different from the book
@@esther9196why did you say it was obvious? You were very rude but whatever and on the end again it doesn’t matter if the movie is different I care how good the movie is.
@@vicentemariani8730Then watch a review of the movie, not about how it is as an adaptation. It’s not the creator’s fault you’re too young to know what adaptation means. You’ll get there around the time you turn 10.
Watching the Great Gatsby movie made me think that Nick loved Gatsby in an unrequited love of sorts. Like damn bro, he was telling Gatsby’s story like a widowed wife would. He wants Gatsby’s life to be viewed as Gatsby being the big victim and everyone was mean to him.
the book has even more gay subtext around Nick *cough* elevator scene *cough*
The book is even more gay ill be honest
Real shit it’s a lil gay
i think nick is just always in love with gatsby
Not in 1925, when the book was written. You're looking at it from a 2024 point of view.
To be honest, I really wish the film adaptions would look more into Nick's loneliness and why the "I'm 30." in hit hard. Back in those times, it was expected for couples to marry and have kids young. And with Nick being a WWI vet, he must've already felt so lost and out of place like any other vet (just look at "All Quiet On The Western Front"). Mixed that was him having troubled romances from that girl back at West, the secretary with her over-protective brother and Jordan, then you see Nick's struggle in solitude. That's probably why he clung on to Daisy, and why he didn't socked Tom when introducing him to his mistress or why he didn't knock any sense into Gatsby after Myrtle's death. Especially the latter as Nick saw a brother in Gatsby due to being in The War. Nick's loneliness made him desperate. For goodness's sake, there was even a chapter of Nick wanting to follow some girl home at one point.
Yes! I remember Nick's narration of his thoughts when he would find his way to Midtown Manhattan and his description of the silhouettes of people in the taxis and then their laughter. I think he expected the world to be fair and it just wasn't so he became judgmental. I always wanted Nick to say, "You do realize your wife was driving" when he ran into Tom in NYC after Gatsby's murder but he chose not to, knowing that it wouldn't make any difference anyway. People like Tom and Daisy used people like the Wilsons, Gatsby, and even Nick.
@@Thomas116-m2n Does make me wonder what would've happened had Tom found out the truth. Would he kill Daisy, file for divorce (and take Pammy), or would he and Daisy "Eh, our lovers are dead. We're even, honey."?
This can be explained by the fact that Nick is in fact a homosexual
Some good insights.
@@kiktik2413 Not. The book was written in 1925.
Dude. When you mentioned the quote "her voice is full of money" I got so excited, because I was also pissed that didn't make the movie!! I thought I was the only one! Anyways, this is a truly thoughtful piece of movie/literary criticism. I really enjoyed this!
It’s in a deleted scene
Also in the song $100 bill on the soundtrack with jay z
I think when Gatsby saw Daisy's daughter, Pamela, he was reminded of Tom.....that Tom exists and the child exists and that Daisy and Tom would always be tied due to that child, even if Daisy left Tom for Gatsby.
Or because in his mind Daisy was still the young débutante he knew from 5 years prior. He even imagined that once she leaves Tom, they will go back to her parents' house and they will marry there. As if the past few years never happened. The existence of Daisy's child, which he never even fully believed in until that moment, is a stark reminder that time did pass.
I find it funny that Baz Luhrman removed certain things from the novel in order not to make Daisy look bad. Daisy is not supposed to be sympathetic. She has her vulnerable moments, but by the end of story she shows her true colours. Daisy was based on a real-life woman whom Fitzgerald used to be in love with, but as he himself wrote, rich girls don't marry poor boys. After the book came out she met Fitzgerald again and asked him if she was the inspiration for any of the characters. To which he supposedly said "Couldn't you tell which bitch you were?". Daisy is only sympathetic when presented through Jay's pink tinted glasses or by Jordan Baker.
Edit: The Wikepedia article says that the conversation between Ginevra King and Fitzgerald was about "The Beautiful and Damned" and not "The Great Gatsby". However the article also says that the character of Gloria was inspired by Zelda, while Daisy was inspired by Ginevra. Whichever book the conversation was about, Nick Carraway describes Daisy and Tom as careless people, who broke lives and then retreated into their arrogance. So, I still believe that Daisy in the end is not supposed to be viewed as a sympathetic character.
I agree, there's moments where you see why Daisy is the way she is. Along with some commentary surrounding the role of women in those days. She is more intelligent than presented, but at the end of the day, she is as selfish and arrogant as Tom
Yes, on the 2000's Paul Rudd (Nick) version, he told exactly how selfish Daisy (Mira Sorvino) and Tom was at the end of the movie before Gatsby (Toby Stevens) got shot. I enjoy the Paul Rudd's version, but the remake by Leonardo D'Caprio and Tobey McGuire was also enjoyable to watch.
Zelda was rich and married a poor boy.
It's a bad adaptation, and yet still one of the best adaptations of this story on film... I don't know if this is more of a commentary on the book itself or on society as a whole.
But it's something.
@@shelbyherring92 this comment is very interesting. This is my second time reading it, I finally understood it……… and (despite never seeing the movie) this is a very interesting take. I dont know if I agree, but the truth in this is undeniably
I agree with this so much.
I think the movie got the vibe of what it was like to be in those moments, yet not what the book was conveying
It can be a bad adaptation and STILL a great movie. I think TGG is a good movie, and a decent adaptation. I think the feelings and subtlety of the message in the movie captures the feeling of the book BUT could have definetely gone further to show the desperation and pointlessness of it all. The movie goes for 'poetic' but the book goes for 'reality'... i feel.
it definitely has style I’ll give it that
I think it's the best adaptation, better than the old version. If you watch the 2013 movie and don't think the characters presented are bad people, that's on you.
I was a junior in high school when this movie was released. I think for me, at 16/17, I saw both the book and the movie as romantic, mainly because of the time period. 11 years later, I can see the story of The Great Gatsby is not a romance, its an anti romance- despite all of the adultry and daisy- and gatsby's affair and the romantic gestures present, its basically all anti romance.
Lol your high school English class failed you
@@AmandaabnamAeveryone has varying perspectives. Why not share yours to broaden this person’s perspective and facilitating a productive conversation instead of being condescending.
Hey, Gatsby is now in the public domain so anyone can adapt it. And I might as well mention two cases where the film version far exceeds the source material: The Zone of Interest is an OK book but 2023’s film outdoes it on every front. And, ahem, Adaptation (2002) highlights how being unfaithful to the text can actually improve it.
Not in the public domain. The Fitzgerald estate still owns the copyright.
@ source? everything i see states it’s in public domain since 2021.
This is was such a lovely commentary. I throughly enjoyed this, and hope to see more.
Here for my English assignment! Thank you for this 🤍
thanks for helping me with my homework
Thank you for giving such well-written, well-spoken voice to everything I’ve always felt/thought about this movie.
"Reserving judgement is a matter of infinite hope" a beautifully warm line Fitzgerald turns to tragedy as we see Nick gain hope upon meeting Gatsby who is the ipitome of 'hope'. A poor man who survived WW1 with no majpr injuries and aqcuired a great amount of wealth. A man who hopes for impossible things like true love, and who sees the best in people. A man who never judges, always strives. By all means, what the 20s believed was an ideal American.
Yet all that hope leads to Gatsby's demise.
He could not see that his wealth was not bringing him happiness, that Daisy was not a perfect person, that romance is not a fairytale escape, that people are terribly cruel.
In that final moment when Daisy ran over that moment he had a chance to see her. The real her. The woman desperatly clinging ro a fantasy to bring her some joy in her shallow life.
Bt he chose to hope instead.
The only one who was hurt was not the couple born to wealth and prestige, who had never 'suffered' or toiled but whose loneliness came from their inability to lose their empty status. Not the man who cheated on his wife, who lied to an innocent woman promising her an escape from pocerty because he liked playing hero, not the man who never fought in the war but played polo.
The only ones who suffer are those not born into privilage, and those who suffer the most are those whp dare to dream and hope like Gatsby and Myrtle.
Hopeful, desperate things chewed up and spit out by those in power as little playthings.
You're so insightful.
Excuse me? Owl Eyes also attended Gatsby's funeral
Imagine if every year they came out with a new artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa. I think the only valid complaint against re-creating art is that the audience should be interested in the original more so than the adaptation. Sadly, most people today care more about the newer version and never care to explore the originals.
I haven't seen any of the films, but I read the book every 10 years or so.
@@zyxw2000 I find that people who read the book get a completely different meaning than those who only watch the movie.
The book to me, likens being in the elite upper class to being an actor on stage. It's all a giant show, which is ultimately unattainable for the majority of people.
People who watch the movie glorify being in the elite upper class, thinking how much they'd like to live a life like them. Not ever picking up the message that the whole thing is for show, and the people behind closed doors are horrible people, who usually become so wealthy from doing horrible things. People who watch the movie think "how do I become a bad person, so I can mingle with that type in society?" I mean maybe its just the women I date, but a few who only watched the movie like Daisy... which is weird to me if they ever read the book.
I don’t feel you are getting Gatsby right here - last thing Fitzgerald wanted was to portray him as a bad person. He was deeply pitiful to everybody lured by the sparkles of wealth and conflicted when actually facing them, those are most of his characters in both novels and short stories - the downfall of Dick Diver is another good example. The same can be said about the passiveness of Nick - he was born moderately wealthy and unlike Gatsby is not able to make his living once his privilege does not pay off, another common trait of Fitzgerald’s characters, especially the main characters of his two stories. Yes, Gatsby was lured by wealth - but this is not necessarily because he was shallow or materialistic, just look at what average person’s lifestyle was back than (and still is compared to the super rich). Once you see this it cannot be unseen, I am saying this as somebody coming from lower upper class who has faced a good portion of billionaires in his life. The issue why Nick struggles with Daisy’s voice is because he is so used to it - and to Gatsby she just talks like nobody in his previous life, in a way that only wealthy people would sound. The story was always first about class and money, and much less so about love.
...and about Gatsby's naivete, thinking the American Dream can still be attained. This was written just after WWI, when the world had become more cynical.
Ok hold on you missed the point of the "incarnation" line. It's not the kiss that's an incarnation, it's that his love for Daisy drags him fully out of his earlier dreams into full humanity by being focused on her. The kiss isn't the incarnation; his being grounded in reality is.
I am so confused how Gatsby is evil??? Gatsby is the only likable character in the whole book? Everyone else is evil, except for mb the mechanic. The whole book is about elitism and Gatspy’s inability to change the past and where he come from,
This is my perspective (which is what I love about literature, it's up for interpretation), but I believe that it shows that not everything is black and white, Gatsby is not purely innocent, but also not entirely horrible. His relectance to move on from Daisy, which I felt most of his attraction was due to her wealth, showed somewhat of a moral lesson? To me it showed that you should not change for someone or something else other than who you want yourself to be. So I don't see Gatbsy as evil, more so flawed. Again, just my interpretation from someone who hasn't read the book in months, but I would love to hear yours as well, the more the merrier!
@@Theabrishmalik I pretty much agree with what you said yes. Not evils was a very strong word, no one is blameless, Gatsby was overly obsessed. But I feel like the fact both men who die are the one most “moral.” again for lack of a better word. (But I don’t t remember Gatsby wanting Daisy for her money, he got money for her to impress her I thought?)
@@aarbear83fierce if he wanted her for money is still up to interpretation, but what I (and my English class) thought of was the line “her voice is full of money” as more so he never loved Daisy, he loved what she represented (money and the American dream)
lmao
Gatsby isn’t evil, but he’s not exactly likeable either. His whole character is based on the fact that he wants Daisy because “her voice is full of money”. He wants the status she represents, not the love he may or may not feel for her. Also it’s heavily implied that Gatsby got his wealth by being a bootlegger and a gangster. Also as the video said, Gatsby abandoned his family to try and chase the ‘American dream’. I agree out of all the main characters he is the least hatable but he’s not the good guy the movie shows him as
Could it be that Hollywood can’t criticize its own vanity?
After this movie I saw a lot of posts saying "I want to be the Daisy to your Gatsby" which I brought to my English teacher and we had a great laugh about it
"I would never want to be somebody's Daisy" she said
Eh, it makes sense. Some women want a guy to obsess over them. People have different tastes.
If you think about it being a bad adaptation doesn't mean being a bad movie, for example the Shining is a horrible book adaptation but is better than the book itself
Great channel btw - also I think Toby was the weakness of the film , as he was basically the key presence in the film
Minor nitpick
Didn't they guy that Nick and Jordan met in Gatsby's library also show up to the funeral? I thought that was kind of interesting
I loved the move despite it's flaws. It got me to read thw book (my classes didn't read the book I was in college in 2013 and read because became obsessed with the movie)
I wonder what you thought about the Redford version? Is there a video? The Redford version was the one I saw after we had to read the book in school. The only problem I will have when I eventually see this version is the fact that putting Jay-Z music into a film about the Roaring 20s might give me a headache--no matter how visionary. This is not like using Elton John for Moulin Rouge. This is literally putting Jay-Z in a time when we should be listening to jazz. Disclosure: I'm still upset about his desecration of "It's a hard knock life" as I am the world's weirdest theater kid. That would be like inviting Eminem (whom I like, by the way) to do the soundtrack for Of Mice & Men. Not saying it's not possible I'm just saying it would be weird. I do like the vivid images I've seen so far of the Jazz Age but, they seem a little bit more like what the 21st century thinks the Jazz Age was rather than a critique of the Jazz Age culture.
I feel like the Redford version does a better job depicting the actual literal sequence of events of the book. But it lacks a lot of flair and personality, both stylistically and in performances. Because of this, I actually prefer the Dicaprio version just purely because of entertainment value - even though I find a lot of its decision blasphemous. Both films are quite bloated, but the Dicaprio one is bloated in an "overly ambitious auteur" way, while the Redford one is bloated in a boring costume drama way. They're still the best we got though, because the 1949 one and the straight-to-TV 2000 one are worse.
In my opinion. It was a great movie. I went to the cinema twice for this movie. It was a hypnotizing experience
Now i want to know your opinion on the new musicals about Great Gatsby.
And the 2002's version of Paul Rudd and Mira Sorvino
I'm writing a gatsby essay right now so THANK YOU
Still hoping there will be an adaptation with the infamous McKee/Elevator scene. The movie hinted at McKee being queer, but I doubt we’d be ready for that interpretation of Nick.
The Great Gatspy Should have been a GREAT TV show! And make it stay true to the source material! By Copying and Pasting everything from the Source Material and do it justice with care and passion and patience!!!
I really think Nick being an unreliable or at least biased narrator is very important to the whole story!
Hell my favorite example is that in the first chapter he hooks up with a man and hand waves it off so fast most people miss it.
Not in a 1925 book.
@@zyxw2000 yeah. They were naked and everything lil bro
My own interpretation of the child and gatsby’s reactions towards him is that the child shows Gatsby the reality he doesn’t want to accept: that time has moved on since before the war, and that he can’t rewrite the past. Gatsby’s outburst of “of course we can” when Nick was talking about the inability to change the past kinda shows this imo, which links to why he tries to make daisy leave Tom, as the marriage is another reality check for him.
What child?
I had a similar feeling when I had to read it and watch it for school
I think I slept through half of the great Gatsby movie during 11th grade English class.
There is a deleted scene of Jays father in the movie.
The anchronistic hip hop music is a great start
Had to read this book and write a book report. All I did was watch the movie
You were too young to understand all the nuances.
I love the book and I love the 2013 film. I think it's a great adaptation. My only criticism is the film left out the Nick/ Jordan dating subplot and relegated Jay's father's arrival to a deleted scene. Apart from these, the adaptation was superb.
Have you watched the 2000's Paul Rudd (Nick), Mira Sorvino (Daisy) and Toby Stevens (Jay Gatsby) version?
Yes, I have. Due to it being a TV special its quite an abridged version of the story, with some half-hearted performances - so I'm not the biggest fan, I prefer the 2013 film, but it has a charm to it.
You turning multiple chapters in a book to a hour maybe 2 into motion picture lol some people read some people want visuals
I think your analysis of the book is really interesting, and I do agree with the 2013 movie not being fully faithful to the novel; however, I do feel like you missed some key concepts of the book. I will start off by stating how Gatsby is NOTHING short of a morally questionable person. He is not perfect and I'm not trying to write off all his actions. The key concept about this novel is how Gatsby is supposed to be a paragon of hope, and how that is the only redeemable thing about him compared to the other characters (as said so by Nick). Gatsby's failure is not because of him, but because of the "foul dust," which is a symbol for the cynicism and carelessness of the old money mentality. I would also argue that Daisy is the antagonist. Fitzgerald details her voice so mellifluously because it's an allusion/metaphor for a siren. The main reason why Gatsby believes he can have Daisy is because she leads him on, like a sailor being led to his doom. If anything, Gatsby is the least shallow character in the novel because although he portrays this flippant attitude, it's just a front in attempts to get with Daisy. Fitzgerald isn't trying to argue that he is naive, but rather that the American Dream is extremely alluring and manipulative.
The soundtrack brought out the roar of the 1920's!
I had to read that book in high school, and I wasn't a fan. It was required cause the author wrote parts of it in my hometown cause he had a summer home in the area when he was writing it. And I know Tom is meant to be an unlikeable character at the time it was written(mostly cause of the adultery), but now a days the teacher always talk big about him being a racist(very few people in the 20s weren't) and his racist rants are kept to one conversation i can remember off the top of my head. But I was with Nike in how I thought Gatsby was a fool for chasing a girl that is for one married and a girl from years ago when he could find somebody new that is way more likely to love him over chasing a woman he had a fling with when he was a broke soldier. I never understood how people could find gatsby's and Daisy's relationship romantic. i found it creepy and foolish. Idk if the rest of the class felt that way, but thankfully, the book was short cause it is not one of my favorites
Of course it’s a bad adaptation, the movie would suck all kinds of ass if it tried to be faithful to the book.
Try the Redford version.
This seems to have that typical hollywood problem of selling the coolness of a character too much for the audience to truly give up on a villian. Tyler Durden, Bateman, etc. Yes I am calling Gatsby a villian here, that's my interpretation.
Love the book and the Movie. 🍿 Even if it doesn’t meet the criteria you established at the beginning of the video. Fitzgerald and Lurman are genuinely genuine
The other movies were all good but they would have been so much better if Alfonso Cuarón stayed on to direct them all.
I find it very interesting how I needed to watch the film two times to understand how truly deranged Gatsby was. It's hard to see, but it's clear that Gatsby is just insane. At least it was for me in the second time. Great video though!
I've read the book 4 times, and I don't see that. He's naive, not insane.
I’d say the movie touches on most of the biggest plot points but it’s missing the complexities and value the book has.
They do say the book IS better than the movies
It's a wink from diddy.
Think about it. DIDDY PARTIES.
Gatzby=diddy. Gatsby parties.
Leo Dicaprio real life friend of diddy. Jay z does music.
Wild sex parties, cover ups, fashion, elegance, history of violence, rock star persona, gangster car rides.
This film is diddy. If you view it backwards. It's hiding in plain sight.
Daisy and husband could represent Jay z and Beyonce.
Dude gets framed and question by cops. Like incidents from diddy life.
THE GREAT DIDDY.
Plus. Main character becomes traumatized after encounter with Gatsby.
Like diddy victims
Kind of ironic how some declare DiCaprio's other 2013 movie, The Wolf of Wall Street to be a far better Great Gatsby tale.
Inevitably someone who's job is to construct this world would sympathize with Gatsby's delusion. I keep thinking of movie directors as being as annoying as Dawson from Dawson's Creek. Not that this director is like that but that kind of self absorbed character came to mind. I wonder how the musical adaptation will be
1:55 Real Jeff.
I have to whole-heartedly disagree, The movie does a great job of showing the 1920s sin and excess, if you can watch the 2013 movie and think any of those characters are good people, then that's a failing on your part. If you need the movie to scream at you that shouldn't idolize wealth and decadence, then you're not using your own mental faculty to analyze the movie. You're expecting it to spoonfeed you on how you should feel.
It’s a bad adaptation but still a solid movie same with world war Z
I kinda prefer the movie here while something like the Percy Jackson movie adaptation i most certainty do not
Look I'm sorry, but my class absolutely hated the great gatsby (theres a meriate of reasons but mainly) we found it boring, so when we watched the flashy movie with over the top scenes, we absolutely loved it, but to each their own
I definitely respect this book more then I like it
You need to read it when you're older. I read it every few years.
@zyxw2000 I appreciate the enthusiasm, but we were all 18-19 years old. We were pretty much all adults
@@blooberryjamyt5688 We hadn't experienced much life yet. We read a lot of novels in high school and college that went over our heads. I went back to some of them many years later.
@zyxw2000 Nah, I understood it just fine, I just didn't like it and found it boring.
And like, I loved a lot of those English class books that we were forced to read like
Night, Animal Farm, The Cask of Amontillado, The Lottery, and even Ths Tragedy of Macbeth.
I loved ALL of these. And even then, I think they all give less Narative interest than The Great Gatsby (okay, maybe not Animal Farm that one is pretty good Narativley), but I still find the book horrendously boring. Some books forget that spending an entire page describing an object or something isn't very fun to read. I can appreciate the book for what it does and the interesting perspective, but I do not like it.
My teacher in high school made us read the book, watch 3 of the gatsby movies, and explain why the 2013 one was bad lmao
You were probably too young to understand its nuances. We read a lot of stuff in high school and college that we weren't really ready for. I read it every few years.
@ yea I’m sure if I went back I would have an actual perspective on the movies 😂
@@alexiavya722 I haven't seen the movies, but I know it's one of the most complex novels in the canon. That's why it's called "The Great American Novel" and why they keep trying to make films of it. It's also 100 years old, and you have to view it from a 1925 perspective, knowing the historical background after the war. I'm defending the novel, haven't seen any of the movie versions.
At the very least, the Casting is great!
One of my all time favorites, it’s a bad adaptation? 😩😩
It wasn't 😊
I only watching the film because Elizabeth Debicky.😅
I fucking HATED it in theaters.
Any movie is bad if DiCraprio is the lead.
Thank you for this analysis! It made me appreciate the novel more. I couldn‘t really enjoy reading it because of the antisemitism in it.
I think the accusation of anti-Semitism is somewhat exaggerated. The Wolfsheim character was modeled by Fitzgerald after Arnold Rothstein, who was the most famous high-society gangster in New York in the 1920s and just happened to be Jewish. He also only has one real scene in the book and is more to give the reader an idea of how Gatsby made his money. Wolfsheim, like Rothstein, is a gangster, but the book doesn't even paint him as particularly unsympathetic. More unsympathetic is the character of Tom, who holds racial views and, like the Nazis, tries to justify them pseudo-scientifically.
@ That‘s very fair. I didn‘t know the character was based on a real person, it just made it seem like a caricature.
I just read the book for the first time a month ago after seeing every adaptation that's been made and I can safely say the story is told so much better on screen by different artists, Baz being by far the best. The book was just kind of bland and outdated to think the book is better than this movie.
The 1970s version with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow was much better and much more faithful to the novel.
The 2002's Paul Rudd and Mira Sorvino version is also remarkable. But the Tobey-Leo version is the real bromance and adress different experience when watch it. Fitzgerald was incredible to create timeless characters such is
Modern music took me out
Good movie bad adaptation
Gtfo... @11:50
The movie made me think it was just a BL movie
Dude, your bashing Harry Potter earned my dislike.
honestly better than the book, the book was not that good
Both the book and the film are kind of forgetful personally. To a large degree, I don't care for it because it just seemed like rich assholes having 1st world problems while the rest of the world suffers off screen. It is a soap opera. The people are so rich and detached from reality of the average poor man it is hard to imagine anyone sympathizing with them unless they themselves are also incredibly powerful and/or rich.The movies and the book are not necessarily bad per say, but I just don't get it myself. All the characters in the great Gatsby except maybe that one mechanic are rich as fuck and they are wallowing over bullshit interpersonal drama and cheating while there are people homeless, hungry, oppressed, and at war. And somehow these rich assholes' soap opera drama are at the center of this book, and instead of being ridiculoued and shine a spotlight on how hypocritical they are, it is always: "Woe is me, I am so rich and powerful and I can't believe my crush in highschool doesn't want me despite that." The book and the movie bascially never give any detail of the average joe's suffering during the gilded age to contrast the soap opera. There is barely any critique of the american dream except the self pity party Fitz Gerald throws himself.
You missed everything in the book.
I think this video is useless
You are saying from the perspective of a book reader I don’t like reading books that much so who cares if the movie is different from the book
the video is about how its a bad adaptation...from the book. Its obvious that you dont like reading much, or reading at all.
It’s for people with taste, which it appears you don’t have
@@esther9196why did you say it was obvious? You were very rude but whatever and on the end again it doesn’t matter if the movie is different I care how good the movie is.
@@vicentemariani8730Then watch a review of the movie, not about how it is as an adaptation. It’s not the creator’s fault you’re too young to know what adaptation means. You’ll get there around the time you turn 10.