Discussion in 'The Moving Picture' started by scotrace, May 3, 2011.
Apparently, the F. Scott Fitzgerald story is being made again - with DiCaprio as Gatsby.
Looking forward to seeing this. I like the director and his better half is an excellent costume/set designer. And it seems that Leo has a knack for attaching himself to the better projects.
I think we had a thread on this a while back, but if memory serves it was all rumour and speculation then. Glad to see the project has traction. This is probably, imo, the finest novel in the English language. I've never been entirely convinced by the screen takes on it - the definitive version has yet to be made. I consider young Leo to be an excellent choice for Gatsby (I much prefer him as an actor to Redford; this may not be a universally held opinion). Tobey Maguire is a good choice for Carraway. I'll be interested to see who they cast as Tom Buchanan. Russell Crowe would have been ideal for that role had he been fifteen to twenty years younger (I'm guessing.... all the characters in the novel are in and around their early thirties. Nick turns thirty during the disastrous trip to New York City towards the end of the novel).
Baz Luhrman I have mixed feelings about. I enjoyed his Romeo and Juliet, but I loathed Moulin Rouge. I dearly hope they stay true to the book rather than attempt to make it "happier". I highly doubt they'll distort the ending of the book so badly as, say, Breakfast at Tiffany's, or A Clockwork Orange, but I would be concerned that the studio might require a certain degree of adaptation of the characters, making Daisy more sympathetic, for example. Fingers crossed.
I was just talking about this with a friend
I think Leo and Tobey McGuire are excellent too. As far as Daisy... anyone would be better in that roll than Mia Farrow was in my opinion. As far as Tom... I can't think of anyone that plays a pompous jerk very well.
Redford though fairly nailed Fitzgerald's protagonist; along with
a credible ensemble cast that eclipse current prospect for another
go at Gatsby.
I honestly don't know if this should be called a remake. Strictly speaking it's simply a new adaption of the novel. Full stop.
It's not as if the novel entered life by way of its adaption for the big screen.
That remake tag would seem more appropriate for films that didn't start life as a full-grown novel but as a screenplay to begin with.
I fear that is not an opinion which I share; I found Redford unconvincing. I also felt the direction pushed it a little too much in the direction of a "love" story (the same mistake as is often made with Romeo and Juliet), when in reality Gatsby's feelings towards Daisy are not love but obsession. The overall look of that film was nicely done - whatever details they got wrong in the clothing styles, they had a lot right (Gatsby's pink suit, for one, as memory serves), but I actually felt the 'made for television' version back in the nineties caught a lot of the feel of the novel much better.
On this we can wholly agree. In any case, as a general rule I am not wholly opposed to a remake of a given film providing it has something new to bring to the work. The 'problem' is more that Hollywood has often seemed, in recent years, run out of ideas and has taken to cannibalising itself. Still, good films continue to be made, and I think it would be a mistake to look back on some supposed golden period of Hollywood of which only the good stuff has 'survived' by this point.
And how. I read somewhere that THEY eek are planning to do a remake of that 1990 boom-crash-bang flick 'Total Recall' (sans Arnold!). Ah well...
Oh, my.... I actually rather liked the original. Wasn't that based on a Steven King book (or am I only thinking that because I know The Running Man was)? I actually can see a remake working well as a more 'intellectual', character driven piece whereas the original was very much an 'action' flick. The basic concept - what is the nature of character / consciousness? - is just superb, though, and ripe for re-examination in this internet era. That he in the end decides to be the 'alternative' person rather than who he starts out is superb. Of course, there is the view that it was all a 'holiday' instilled in his mind by that company, but I don't necessarily hold with that one. Great fun, though, and one of Arnie's better outings.
I consider the decision to remake that film as a rather dubious yet not entirely surprising one...
BTW: The film was based on a story by Philip K. Dick who also wrote the novel that was made into Blade Runner (the original title of he book is great: Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?)
Ah, yes, that was it.... Philip K Dick. I knew there was a literary basis.... I think a redux on The Running Man would be interesting if they stuck true to the book instead of the remodelling of the story in the Arnie film. The tale of a man forced by poverty into the most demeaning kind of reality television could be a real fable for our times.
I rather like the 40's version with Alan Ladd
Seconded. I personally hated the later version. I thought both Redord and Farrow were miscast. Farrow looked like a grinning skull and Redford was particularly wooden. (Although i don't rate him as a great actor anyway, (just eye candy).
Oh, Mamma Mia! :eeek:
He he, a bit harsh, but that's what sprung to mind when i was watching the film. My imagination is obviously fertile if nothing else!
Shush now! You are incorrigible! (You made me blush and that just won't do....).
So, I'm just curious, are they going to make this a modern update like they did with Great Expectations, where it takes place in contemporary times, or will it be a period piece, circa 1920's, straight from the book?
Gatsby; like Fitzgerald himself, seems ideally set in the 20s.
Separate names with a comma.