I'm curious about "The Great Gatsby," and I don't know why.

[LynnM]

Beautiful prose but I never felt emotionally engaged in the story, nor did I feel much empathy for the characters.

A literary achievement, but a cool and distant reading experience. More mental/intellectual than emotional.

Just read this yesterday–have a look:

Why I Despise The Great Gatsby By Kathryn Schulz

Schulz: Why I Despise The Great Gatsby

[Eutychus]

I prefer the Scorsese version with Vinnie Chase.

[WordMan]

@Hermione

I think what Luhrmann’s going for is the same effect he pulled off in Moulin Rouge.

He was quoted as saying that he wanted to get across the wild atmosphere of the Moulin Rouge at the turn of the century. In that era, he explained, the can-can was shocking, daring, cutting-edge. Today it’s seen as quaint and charming–local color for Parisian postcards. (Or used in supermarket ads.)

So by replacing the old-style can-can music with modern-day rock and pop, he made us see it as the audiences of early 19th-century Paris did.

So it probably is with Gatsby. Today, we see Jazz Age culture as innocent and fun, and the Charleston as a quaint relic. But when we pair the Art Deco atmosphere with hip-hop and other modern-day music, we can see it as wild, reckless, avant-garde…as they must have seen it.

Yep - I get that and know it is Luhrmann’s intent - I just don’t know if it will work this time. I was not a Moulin Rouge guy, but everyone’s mileage may vary…

[Slithy_Tove]

@Nzinga_Seated

Whoa. That’s an interesting way to look at it.

compared to “I’ll make more money this way.”

[PSXer]

If you’re gonna do that though why not just set the movie in 2013

[David_H_Singanas]

[quote=“LynnM, post:21, topic:657739”]

Beautiful prose but I never felt emotionally engaged in the story, nor did I feel much empathy for the characters.
A literary achievement, but a cool and distant reading experience. More mental/intellectual than emotional.

I saw the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version as a 20 something and I was more
interested in the music, the dancing and the scantily clad women than in the plot.
It was the era of the debutante dress that could fit into a cigar box!
I loved the snap of the beads on their dresses during the hip spins. I watched
for that in the VHS release, and these scenes had been deleted. Damn !

I taught GG in a Houston private school. It’s the only novel I have ever read in
which each quote can be used in a movie script and each chapter is an intact
movie scene. An ideal English text for teens because it is loaded with
figurative language and “sex appeal.”

Singanas

[Boyo_Jim]

I felt the same about it as the OP, and in college I asked my English Lit TA what made Gatsby Great Literature. Her explanation was that it created new literary conventions which have been copied since.

Primary among them are what she called “The Unreliable Narrator”. Over the course of the book, we learn that the narrator is keeping secrets. Or isn’t the Omniscient Narrator like so many others, and instead is as ignorant of the backstory of Gatsby as the rest pf us. Or maybe is outright lying to us. Or perhaps a combination. We can never be sure.

I’m still not a big fan, but I found the explanation reasonably satisfying.

[ShibbOleth]

@actualliberalnotoneofthose

Moulin Rouge or Rome+Juliet?

I liked Romeo + Juliet, but wasn’t as enamored of Moulin Rouge as others. I did like his first film quiet a bit, though.

It’s noteworthy to me that my daughter and her high school friends already plan to see this on the opening Friday. Means that it’s getting some buzz amongst the younger set. Will be very interesting to see how it does against Iron Man.

[BigT]

@LynnM

Beautiful prose but I never felt emotionally engaged in the story, nor did I feel much empathy for the characters.

A literary achievement, but a cool and distant reading experience. More mental/intellectual than emotional.

Just read this yesterday–have a look:

Why I Despise The Great Gatsby By Kathryn Schulz
Schulz: Why I Despise The Great Gatsby

Oh my goodness, that described my problems with the work perfectly. It is exactly that sort of children’s play with symbolism all over but nothing else. It is completely detached. You’d think, by reading the synopsis, that it would be interesting. But it’s not, at all.

I think this movie is the work’s best hope. If real people are hung on this framework, it might just work. Granted, it’ll be a soap opera/chick flick, but at least it could work as that. Give Daisy and Gatsby an actual romance to care about, and you’ve got something interesting.

And at least Gatsby’s death might actually be shown on fucking screen. He’s the tragic character of the work, for goodness sake! His death is what gives the entire story its purpose. Yet not only does his death happen off the page, but everything that led up to it comes from someone telling the narrator about it after it happened. The author goes out of his way to keep you detached from it, to wrench the meaning from what happened.

[Slithy_Tove]

@Boyo_Jim

in college I asked my English Lit TA what made Gatsby Great Literature. Her explanation was that it created new literary conventions which have been copied since.

Primary among them are what she called “The Unreliable Narrator”.

I don’t think TGG created or popularized the unreliable narrator.

[WordMan]

@Boyo_Jim

I felt the same about it as the OP, and in college I asked my English Lit TA what made Gatsby Great Literature. Her explanation was that it created new literary conventions which have been copied since.

Primary among them are what she called “The Unreliable Narrator”. Over the course of the book, we learn that the narrator is keeping secrets. Or isn’t the Omniscient Narrator like so many others, and instead is as ignorant of the backstory of Gatsby as the rest pf us. Or maybe is outright lying to us. Or perhaps a combination. We can never be sure.

I’m still not a big fan, but I found the explanation reasonably satisfying.

That is NOT the reason to think it’s The Great American Novel.

It’s (in the running for) TGAN because its a great story that works on multiple levels. Chasing dreams, achieving them and losing them - all within the context of the Rich, who are entertained while it is going on, but after the wreckage is hauled away, can move on to the next spectacle…

[Bridget_Burke]

@Slithy_Tove

I don’t think TGG created or popularized the unreliable narrator.

Yeah, I was about to mention Ford Madox Ford’s The Good Soldier. (Was the narrator unreliable or just an idiot?) And probably earlier works; did I truly appreciatethis line of thought on the first reading?

It was all very well to say ‘Drink me,’ but the wise little Alice was not going to do THAT in a hurry. ‘No, I’ll look first,’ she said, ‘and see whether it’s marked “poison” or not’; for she had read several nice little histories about children who had got burnt, and eaten up by wild beasts and other unpleasant things, all because they WOULD not remember the simple rules their friends had taught them: such as, that a red-hot poker will burn you if you hold it too long; and that if you cut your finger VERY deeply with a knife, it usually bleeds; and she had never forgotten that, if you drink much from a bottle marked ‘poison,’ it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later.

Oh, topic? Just read this…

The Great Gatsby is both too much and what Luhrmann wants, less a movie version of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel than a movie version of Jay Gatsby himself. It’s an expressionist work, a story reinvented to the point of total self-invention, polished to a handsome sheen and possessing no class or taste beyond the kind you can buy. And those are the reasons to love it.

I’ll be there!

[ISiddiqui]

@Elendil_s_Heir

I saw Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge on DVD and turned it off after half an hour - too frenetic and self-consciously, cloyingly “Oh, aren’t we daring!” for my taste.

I’d say struggle through one more time and watch it all the way. The first time I saw Moulin Rouge, the 1st half hour was just incredibly strange and weird to me and I was wondering what in the Hell I had gotten myself into… but the rest of the movie was just so utterly fantastic. It is one of my favorite movies, in spite of the overly frantic first half hour.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Sorry. It put me off too much to take another stab at it.

[WordMan]

Update: the NY Times’ A.O. Scott came out with his review - I’d link to it but it is behind their wall. He basically ends by saying that Jay Gatsby’s character was a mess and this movie is, too - and that’s kind of a good thing.

So - worth seeing if you know what you are signing up for, but it isn’t going to win over haters. Not particularly surprising given Luhrmann’s divisive style…

[Freddy_the_Pig]

The Great Gatsby is a highly symbolic meditation on 1920s America as a whole, in particular the disintegration of the American dream in an era of unprecedented prosperity and material excess.

Oh, it’s highly symbolic, all right. It reads as if somebody had challenged Fitzgerald to write a book that would be a staple of lit classes a century into the future. But I don’t know what “American dream” it speaks to, unless your dream is to become a bored mega-rich socialite or a gangster.

It’s a nice satire of the idle rich, I suppose, although that’s an awfully easy target. And even then, Gatsby doesn’t know when to stop. At one point Tom Buchanan gets off the train to pick up his proletarian mistress, Myrtle. The idea that Tom would have a proletarian mistress makes no sense. But at least, the reader thinks, we might now meet a counterpoint to all these bored rich people. But no. Myrtle and her husband are just as loutish and uninteresting as the rich.

Then we have Jordan Baker, introduced as a female golfer in an era when women athletes were a novelty. That could be interesting. But no. Jordan is just as vapid as everybody else. She appears to be a golfer for the same reason that the orchestra plays jazz–to add period detail. “It’s the 1920’s, and women are doing crazy things like philandering and playing golf.” That’s all.

Maybe I’ll like the movie. It can’t very well do violence to the book.

[Ellen_Cherry]

But Freddy, isn’t the American Dream to be rich?

@Hello_Again

I re-read it recently and liked it (not loved it) but I could see why I got nothing out if at at 15. The inherent pathos of living with the limits placed on us by class and geography just wasn’t ringing my bell back then.

If anyone’s curious, the Corona Ash pit was located in the present-day site of Flushing Meadows Park. The fill was used to level the Van Wyck Parkway.

Hello, though it’s nowhere near the novel The Great Gatsby is, I’ve often had the same thought about Gone With the Wind. Reading it as a teenager, you have no idea what conventions Scarlett was throwing off when she danced at the charity ball, or cast her lot with the Carpetbaggers. You can argue that those conventions were ridiculous, but jettisoning them had consequences, which you just don’t see before you get some experience in life. When I was 13, I was just all, “You go, girl!”

[randwill]

@WordMan

Update: the NY Times’ A.O. Scott came out with his review - I’d link to it but it is behind their wall. He basically ends by saying that Jay Gatsby’s character was a mess and this movie is, too - and that’s kind of a good thing.

So - worth seeing if you know what you are signing up for, but it isn’t going to win over haters. Not particularly surprising given Luhrmann’s divisive style…

It’s currently at 45% rotten at Rotten Tomatoes and has a 55 (out of 100) metascore at Metacritic. That’s far enough into ‘piece of crap’ territory that I’ll not have to waste 2 hours and 23 minutes of my life on it.

[Hello_Again]

But to be clear I also agree with Freddy - insofar as Gatsby had a dream which he lost (daisy) it was totally stupid, worthless dream. Of all the things he could fruitlessly aspire to, he chose Daisy?! Of all the inane characters in the book - and they’re all pointlessly trite with shallow characterizations - Daisy is the inane-iest.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Ellen_Cherry

But Freddy, isn’t the American Dream to be rich?

I’ve always though of it as improving one’s self through study and hard work, and hopefully ending up better off than one’s parents. Maybe even a lot better off, and maybe even rich, although probably not as rich as Gatsby.

The dream certainly has its flaws–it’s possible to work hard and get kicked in the ass, and even such modest wealth as most dreamers ultimately achieve is not without its discontents.

But, none of these flaws are explored in any remotely realistic way in Gatsby. Except for Gatsby himself, none of the characters strove for or dreamed of anything. They’re old-money idle rich–and again, an awfully easy target.

Gatsby himself is a striver–not through hard work, but through the get-rich-quick scheme of working for a gangster. But even Gatsby seems disconnected from any normal American dream; he pursues wealth with the single obsession of getting closer to Daisy. (Why? She’s interchangeable with any other vapid airhead on Long Island.) None of this spoke to any dream that I could relate to.